JARI MCMILLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a downward departure sentence for a RICO conspiracy conviction.
[1] District courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review a trial court's exercise of discretion in denying a downward departure sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJari McMiller was convicted of racketeering (RICO) conspiracy under Florida Statutes sections 895.03(4) and 874.04. At sentencing, McMiller presented …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit Racketeering cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-3125 Lower Tribunal No. 2017-CF-000090 _____________________________
JARI MCMILLER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Bruce Kyle, Judge.
October 7, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Jari McMiller challenges his conviction and sentence for racketeering (RICO) conspiracy, in violation of sections 895.03(4) and 874.04, Florida Statutes. We find no error and affirm. We write, however, to briefly address McMiller’s claim that the trial court erred in declining to grant his request for a downward departure, in light of the mitigating evidence presented at sentencing. We find that we have jurisdiction to consider this claim on the merits. See Gazoombi v. State, 406 So. 3d 371, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (en banc) (receding from Wilson v.
2
State, 306 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) and Parrish v. State, 349 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), and holding that district courts of appeal had jurisdiction to review trial court’s exercise of its discretion to deny downward departure sentence); Fogarty v. State, 158 So. 3d 669, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (en banc); Kiley v. State, 273 So. 3d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Nevertheless, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a downward departure sentence, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Nicholas Martino, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fogarty v. State, 158 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Parrish v. State, 349 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
- Gazoombi v. State, 406 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
- Kiley v. State, 273 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)