Matthew P. Ferry - Maitland, FL

Matthew P. Ferry is a partner with Lindsey, Ferry & Parker, P.A. and has practiced criminal defense law exclusively since 2006. For nearly two decades, Mr. Ferry has dedicated his career to the vigorous and strategic defense of individuals charged with criminal offenses in state and federal courts throughout Central Florida.

Mr. Ferry earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance from the University of Florida, followed by his Juris Doctor from Barry University School of Law. Since his admission to The Florida Bar in 2006, he has represented clients in a broad range of criminal matters, including felony and misdemeanor offenses, DUI cases, traffic-related crimes, and complex federal prosecutions. His financial background and trial experience allow him to approach cases with a disciplined, analytical mindset, particularly in matters involving white-collar allegations, firearms offenses, and constitutionally driven litigation.

In addition to his state court practice, Mr. Ferry regularly represents clients charged in federal cases before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Throughout his career, he has remained committed to the principle that every client is entitled to a thorough, prepared, and aggressive defense, regardless of the charge or the forum.

Mr. Ferry is an active leader within the legal community. In 2010, he was appointed Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the Orange County Bar Association, and in 2012, he was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In recognition of his experience and professionalism, The Florida Bar selected him in 2015 and 2019 to lecture fellow attorneys on criminal law and discovery practice.

Mr. Ferry’s work has been consistently recognized by his peers. He was nominated as Orlando Style Magazine’s “Number One Rising Star” in criminal defense and was selected to Florida Super Lawyers – Rising Stars from 2016 through 2019, an honor limited to no more than 2.5% of attorneys statewide. In 2026, Mr. Ferry was selected to Florida Super Lawyers, reflecting sustained excellence in criminal defense practice beyond the Rising Stars designation. Additionally, Lindsey, Ferry & Parker, P.A. was recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms by Best Lawyers®, with rankings in Criminal Defense: General Practice and Criminal Defense: White-Collar.

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)

Mr. Ferry served as counsel in Rehaif v. United States, a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that significantly altered the Government’s burden of proof in federal firearm prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

In Rehaif, the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm based on his immigration status. At trial, Mr. Ferry requested a jury instruction requiring the Government to prove not only that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm, but also that he knew of his prohibited status at the time of possession. The trial court denied the request.

On June 21, 2019, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the Government must prove both elements of knowledge, possession of the firearm and awareness of the relevant status, thereby reshaping federal firearms jurisprudence nationwide.

J.G.G. v. M.S., 312 So.3d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)

Attorney Matthew Ferry served as counsel in J.G.G. v. M.S., a significant decision from Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal addressing due process protections in domestic violence injunction proceedings. In J.G.G., the respondent husband appealed the issuance of a final domestic violence injunction. At the hearing below, the petitioner wife was permitted to testify about allegations of domestic violence that had not been set forth in her original petition. [Attorney Name] argued that this testimony violated the respondent's constitutional right to adequate notice of the allegations against him. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, holding that the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding allegations not contained in the petition. The decision reinforced the fundamental principle that respondents in domestic violence proceedings are entitled to due process protections, including proper and adequate notice of the specific allegations that will be the subject of the hearing.

Chiu v. Adams, 327 So3d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

Attorney Matthew Ferry served as counsel in Chiu v. Adams, a decision from Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal addressing the evidentiary requirements for obtaining a stalking injunction under Florida law. The parties were involved in an on-again, off-again relationship in which they would break up periodically, and then the boyfriend would communicate with the girlfriend until she agreed to get back together. When the girlfriend announced a permanent separation, the boyfriend began contacting her continuously. The boyfriend then travelled to Florida from out of state to meet the girlfriend at a restaurant.

When the girlfriend did not show up and would not answer the boyfriend's calls or text messages, the boyfriend went to her home. The girlfriend then sought a stalking injunction which was denied. On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the denial, holding that while the incident in which the boyfriend visited the home constituted an act of stalking, there were no other incidents alleged that would support an injunction. The court emphasized that issuance of a stalking injunction in Florida requires a showing of at least two instances of stalking, and that courts must apply an objective reasonable person standard rather than a subjective test when evaluating the petitioner's claims. The decision clarified the evidentiary threshold required for stalking injunctions under § 784.0485, Florida Statutes.

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Corcoran, 133 So.3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)

Attorney Matthew Ferry, served as counsel for the Respondent in Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Corcoran, a significant administrative law decision from Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal regarding driver's license suspension hearings under Florida's implied consent laws. The case arose from a DUI arrest in which Officer Raymond Link pace-clocked and subsequently conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle traveling 60 mph in a posted 45 mph speed zone. At the administrative hearing, Corcoran's counsel argued that the breath test operator's failure to appear deprived him of due process and should result in the invalidation of the suspension altogether. The circuit court agreed and quashed the hearing officer’s order. On certiorari review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the Department's petition and quashed the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court applied the wrong law and that remanding the matter for a new hearing is required by this Court's prior caselaw. The decision reinforced that evidentiary errors in administrative hearings should result in remand for a new hearing rather than automatic invalidation of the suspension.

Guevara v. State, 227 So.3d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

Attorney Matthew Ferry served as counsel in Guevara v. State, the Fifth District Court of Appeal examined whether the odor of marijuana alone justified a warrantless detention and search at a private residence.

Law enforcement officers approached the appellant’s home and reported smelling marijuana emanating from the residence. Based solely on the odor, officers detained the appellant, placed him in handcuffs, and conducted a warrantless search that led to the discovery of thirty-six cannabis plants inside the home.

On appeal, the Fifth District reversed the conviction, holding that the odor of marijuana, without additional exigent circumstances or a warrant, did not justify the appellant’s detention or the warrantless search of the residence. The court emphasized that the heightened constitutional protections afforded to a person’s home cannot be overcome by odor alone, and that placing the appellant in handcuffs constituted an unlawful seizure unsupported by probable cause or exigency.

Guevara reaffirmed that warrantless searches of a home are presumptively unreasonable and that evidence obtained through an unlawful detention or search must be suppressed, even where officers believe contraband may be present.

Budhan v. State, 204 So.3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)

Attorney Matthew Ferry served as counsel in Budhan v. State, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed convictions arising from a shooting incident in which the defendant was charged with two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, one count of aggravated battery with a firearm or causing great bodily harm, and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm.

On appeal, Mr. Budhan challenged errors occurring during the trial proceedings that affected the fairness of the adjudication. The Fifth District reversed the convictions, concluding that the trial court committed reversible error and not providing the correct jury instructions.