WILLIAM JARVIS
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.
A rule 3.800(a) motion challenging consecutive sentences must establish from the trial record that consecutive sentences were imposed for a single criminal act; absent clear demonstration of this on the face of the record, the motion is not properly pled.
[1] Consecutive mandatory minimum sentences arising from the single criminal act of placing a bomb are improper.
[2] A motion for postconviction relief must cite to facts established in the trial transcript or otherwise apparent on the face of the record to demonstrate entitlement to re…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimums arising from the single criminal act of placing the bomb improper”
Citation to McGouirk v. State for the controlling legal principle that consecutive sentences cannot be imposed for a single bomb placement
In 2003, William Jarvis was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and two counts of placing a bomb causing injury, receiving multiple …
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
June 7, 2019 PER CURIAM.
In 2003, Appellant William Jarvis was convicted of first- degree 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
2
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”). 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.
ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- McGOUIRK v. State, 493 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Napier, 467 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1985)
- Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)