M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-10-2019

Case Style:

William Jarvis vs State of Florida

Case Number: 17-4186

Judge: PER CURIAM

Court: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda Stokes and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General

Defendant's Attorney: William Mallory Kent

Description:

MoreLaw Virtual Receptionists
Nosotros hablamos español






In 2003, Appellant William Jarvis was convicted of firstdegree murder, first-degree arson, and two counts of placing a bomb causing injury. He received multiple, consecutive life sentences. According to his subsequent rule 3.800(a) motion, all charges related to a single criminal episode, in which a single bomb killed one and injured two others. He contends that because there was only a single bomb, consecutive sentences were improper. In McGouirk v. State, the Florida Supreme Court found “the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums arising from the single criminal act of placing the bomb improper.” 493 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1986) (citing Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983); State v. Ames, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)). Thus, if Jarvis’s convictions all flowed from “the single criminal act of placing the bomb,” the mandatory minimum portions of his sentences should not have been consecutive. But it is not clear from the charging document or the verdict form (both attached to the trial court’s order) that there was just a single act. Jarvis has thus not demonstrated entitlement to relief under rule 3.800(a). See Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting facial invalidity of 3.800 motion that did not cite “to facts established in the trial transcript or otherwise apparent on the face of the record”).

Outcome: We therefore affirm, but we do so “without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to file a properly pled rule 3.800(a) motion in the trial court.” See id. AFFIRMED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.