Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
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
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