Michael P. Maddux, Attorney at Law


State v. J.S.W and D.J.H.

State of Florida v. J.P.

G.A. v. Department of Children and Family Services

State of Florida v. B.O.

State of Florida v. C.T.

State of Florida v. R.B.


Gainesville: 352-333-0144

Tampa Bay Area: 813-253-3363

Rated 10 of 10 on Avvo

Reported Decisions and Results of Successful Advocacy by Michael P. Maddux, P.A.

State v. J.S.W and D.J.H., 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 621, (Fla. 2nd DCA January 24, 2007) - Per curiam affirmed; The appellate court’s opinion upheld the trial court’s granting of a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence and dismiss paraphernalia and possession charges where defendant was stopped for allegedly improper headlights and ground effects. Based on defendant's alleged "glassy eyes" (where defendant offered to submit to a breath test), the officer took defendant’s drivers license, handcuffed him, and placed him in the police vehicle before obtaining purported "consent" to search defendant's vehicle. Mr. Maddux advocated on behalf of defendant at the trial and appeal proceedings in which the State appealed the trial court’s suppression of the evidence and statements obtained. The appeal court upheld the suppression and dismissal of the charges against defendant.

State of Florida v. C.T., Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Felony Division, Case No. 07-CF-01682, Div. D. - Jury trial finding C.T. innocent of felony charges. A Hillsborough County deputy jumped into a center lane in which C.T. was traveling, from concealed position, at night, in front of C.T., to force him to stop to receive a speeding citation. C.T. had barely enough perception / reaction time to avoid striking the overzealous deputy. C.T.was tasered without being asked or demanded to get down, turn around, or put his hands on his head, and without a taser warning. Deputies filed false charges including resisting an officer, and fleeing and eluding. They later changed their sworn written reports. Unfortunately for the deputies, C.T.'s career goals of working for the Department of Homeland Security required him try his case before a jury. Accordingly, the jury properly concluded the Deputies' testimony under sworn oath was false and acquitted him of the wrongfully brought charges.

State of Florida v. J.P., 929 So. 2d 1067 (2nd DCA May 19, 2006) - Per curiam affirmed; The appellate court upheld the trial court's granting of defendant's motion to dismiss on trafficking in cocaine charge. The motion was granted based on law enforcement's entrapment of the defendant. As a result of Michael P. Maddux's work at the trial and appellate levels, all charges against the client were dismissed. Despite the State's effort to have the trial court reversed by the Second District, Mr. Maddux's results were upheld on appeal. Attached is a copy of an Order granting a motion to dismiss on a first degree felony drug trafficking case. Our client was entrapped as a matter of law and we made that allegation in our motion to dismiss. The State had already decided that they did not want to disclose the confidential informant that had entrapped our client. When we plead our motion, the state made an inadequate response still trying to provide cover for their confidential informant. Because our client was in fact entrapped and because the state filed a deficient response, the motion to suppress was granted and our client's case was dismissed. The state attorney appealed the decision and attached is the Opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal upholding the dismissal. As a result, our client’s entire case was thrown out. If you need zealous advocacy and a stronger fighter, please call us.

State of Florida v. R. B.,When sheriff's deputies in another county encountered a person who had committed grand theft, he talked. Many times law enforcement are able to learn of other alleged criminal conduct from cooperating arrestees. In this case, he identified our client and said he had a stolen trailer on his property. The problem for law enforcement was their confidential informant said a single trailer and our client had a large piece of property that included many acres of barns, warehouses and other buildings. The Sheriff's Office showed up with a large team to search for this single trailer and coerced our client into believing they would search for one trailer. However, when they were actually exploring the property, they began interrogating him about virtually every piece of equipment located on the property. We argued the sheriffs had overreached and looked beyond the scope of any consent given by our client. The circuit court judge agreed and dismissed a nine count information charging our client with theft of various trailers. This office routinely challenges searches made under the guise of consent because they are often coerced and improperly obtained. If you feel that law enforcement has overreached in their investigation, please contact us.

G.A. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15216; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2329 (2nd DCA October 10, 2003) - The Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order entering consent to adjudication of dependency based on a father's being absent from the courtroom when he had momentarily excused himself and was in the restroom when case was called. Mr. Maddux was able to preserve the father's right to return to the trial court to fight for his rights to act as a father.

State of Florida v. B.O., 751 So. 2d 172 (2nd DCA 2000) - The appellate court reversed a trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress and remanded the case for another hearing. On remand the trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the State could not proceed on the charges. The State filed the initial appeal when Mr. Maddux obtained a downward departure for the defendant. Mr. Maddux cross appealed the denial of a motion to suppress and won a remand on the appeal. Back at the trial level, the new trial judge reviewed a transcript of the motion to suppress hearing and granted the originally denied motion to suppress, resulting in a major victory for the defendant.


Please Call Now to schedule a consultation so we can put our ingenuity, determination, and team to work for you.
2102 West Cleveland Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Tampa Bay Area: 813-253-3363       Gainesville: 352-333-0144

"The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience."

Copyright © 2017, Michael P. Maddux, P.A. - Attorneys at Law, All rights reserved.