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.

Notable Cases:

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.

Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019)

The Supreme Court rewrote the rules for federal gun prosecutions, and it started with a case out of Melbourne, Florida.

Hamid Rehaif came to the United States on a student visa to attend Florida Institute of Technology. He was academically dismissed in December 2014, and when he did not leave the country, he lost his lawful status. He later fired weapons at a local shooting range and possessed ammunition. Federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2), which make it a crime for a person unlawfully in the country to possess a firearm.

Here was the fight. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the government did not have to prove Rehaif knew he was in the country unlawfully. The defense objected, the objection was overruled, and the jury convicted. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed under existing circuit precedent.

The Supreme Court reversed. It held that in a prosecution under §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the category of people barred from having one. Knowing you have a gun is not enough. The government has to prove you knew the thing about yourself that made it illegal.

Matthew Ferry served as counsel for Hamid Rehaif in the district court proceedings in United States v. Rehaif, the case that produced the Supreme Court's landmark § 922(g) decision.

Why it matters: This is one of a small handful of criminal cases each decade that changes federal practice nationwide. Every felon in possession case, every unlawful alien in possession case, every prosecution under any of the nine prohibited categories in § 922(g) now carries a knowledge element that did not exist before. The Supreme Court also left one question open, sending the case back so the district court could decide in the first instance whether the flawed jury instruction was harmless.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 17-9560

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

You cannot be ambushed at your own hearing.

A wife petitioned for a domestic violence injunction against her husband. Her written petition described two specific incidents. At the hearing, though, the trial court let her testify about two more incidents that appeared nowhere in the petition. The husband's lawyer objected. The court allowed it anyway and entered the injunction.

Matthew Ferry took the appeal and framed it as what it was: a procedural due process problem. The Fifth District reversed, holding that notice must convey the required information and give a person a reasonable opportunity to appear, and that an injunction must rest only on the facts set out in the petition. The court also held that when a trial judge admits improper evidence over objection, the judge has to state on the record that the evidence was not relied on, and if that does not happen, the appellate court cannot simply assume it was disregarded.

Why it matters: A domestic violence injunction follows you. It shows up in background checks, custody fights, and firearm eligibility. This published opinion is now binding precedent, and other Florida courts cite it regularly, including the Fifth District's later decision in Brooks v. Basdeo and cases such as Peck v. Rosado for the principle that a permanent injunction requires fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard.

Source: J.G.G. v. M.S., Case No. 5D19-3483

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

Convictions reversed because the jury got the law wrong.

This case arose from a shooting prosecution involving two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery with a firearm causing great bodily harm, and aggravated assault with a firearm. Serious felony exposure.

The Fifth District reversed the convictions, concluding that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to give the correct jury instructions.

Why it matters: Jury instructions are the rulebook the jury actually uses in the deliberation room. When they misstate an element, the verdict is built on a faulty foundation, no matter how the evidence looked. Catching that error and proving it mattered is appellate work at its most consequential.

Chiu v. Adams, 327 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

One incident is not a course of conduct.

After an on again, off again relationship ended for good, the petitioner sought a permanent stalking injunction. The trial court denied it and dissolved the temporary injunction, and the Fifth District affirmed, because only one indisputable instance of statutory stalking had been proved. Two instances are required.

Why it matters: Florida's stalking injunction statute, section 784.048, requires a repeated course of conduct, and courts measure harassment by an objective reasonable person standard rather than the petitioner's subjective reaction. Chiu is now cited across Florida for the proposition that a petitioner must establish more than one instance of stalking.

Source: Chiu v. Adams, Case No. 5D20-2502

Reported Trial Court and Circuit Appellate Orders

Published in Florida Law Weekly Supplement*, the reporter Florida lawyers use to find persuasive authority from trial and circuit appellate courts.*

Chapas v. State, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 615a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Mar. 14, 2014)

A trooper said the radar was calibrated. Saying so is not the same as proving it.

A driver was clocked at 100 in a 70 and adjudicated guilty. The trooper testified that his radar had been calibrated within the previous six months and that he checked the unit with a tuning fork before and after his shift. What he did not produce was the signed and witnessed certificate the statute requires, and the radar log he did put into evidence recorded only that a test happened, not the results.

Matthew Ferry took the appeal. The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, agreed on both points. Section 316.1905 requires a signed, witnessed certificate showing the device was tested and working properly, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 15B-2.009 requires a log of the actual internal and external tuning fork readings. A log saying only that a test occurred does not satisfy the rule. The judgment and sentence were reversed.

Why it matters: This is the same principle that decided Ashley Parker's Super Speeder acquittal twelve years later. When the State's case is a number produced by a machine, the State has to prove the machine was working. Not assert it. Prove it, with the paperwork the law specifies.

Burrell v. DHSMV, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1060a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Sept. 25, 2012), and Murvin v. DHSMV, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 461a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 5, 2013)

Win the rule, then use the rule.

In Burrell, a driver's license was suspended after a breath test refusal. The arresting officer was subpoenaed to the formal review hearing and did not show. The hearing was continued. He did not show the second time either. The hearing officer told the driver his only option was to go to circuit court and enforce the subpoena himself, then sustained the suspension when he declined.

Ferry petitioned for certiorari and won. Florida Administrative Code Rule 15A-6.015(2)(c) says no hearing shall be continued for a second failure to appear. Once the officer missed twice, the hearing officer had no authority to continue again, and the driver was not required to chase the subpoena into circuit court. The suspension was quashed.

Five months later, in Murvin, the identical situation arose with an agency inspector instead of an arresting officer. Ferry cited Burrell. The circuit court quashed that suspension too, relying on the decision Ferry had won the previous fall.

Why it matters: These are administrative hearings where the deck is stacked and most drivers simply lose their licenses. Ferry established the rule in one case and turned it into precedent in the next. That is the difference between winning a hearing and changing how the hearings work.

Peele v. DHSMV, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 610a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 24, 2014)

The officer was unavailable indefinitely. His paperwork was not.

A driver's license was suspended after a DUI arrest. He subpoenaed the arresting officer for the formal review hearing, but the police department refused service because the officer was on indefinite medical leave. So the officer never appeared, and the driver never got to cross-examine him. The hearing officer nevertheless kept the officer's arrest affidavit in evidence and overruled the objection without making any findings.

Ferry petitioned for certiorari. The circuit court held the department was not obligated to accept service, but the hearing officer still had to do one of two things: continue the hearing so service could be attempted later, or strike the arrest affidavit. Doing neither deprived the driver of due process. The suspension was quashed and the case remanded, with instructions to determine whether the length of that indefinite leave would functionally deprive him of a meaningful hearing.

Why it matters: An arrest affidavit is one officer's account, written by the officer. If he never has to answer questions about it, it is not evidence so much as an assertion. This ruling says a hearing officer cannot have it both ways.

A note on these orders: each was published in Florida Law Weekly Supplement and can be located by the citations above. Trial court and circuit appellate decisions are persuasive rather than binding, and a suppression ruling resolves what evidence a jury may hear, not necessarily how a case ultimately ends.

Disclaimer* The case summaries on this page are provided for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship with Lindsey, Ferry & Parker, P.A. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. If you are facing criminal charges, please consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.