William Jarvis v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 7, 2019
Docket17-4186
StatusPublished

This text of William Jarvis v. State of Florida (William Jarvis v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
William Jarvis v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-4186 _____________________________

WILLIAM JARVIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

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 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. _____________________________

William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda Stokes and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGouirk v. State
493 So. 2d 1016 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
State v. Ames
467 So. 2d 994 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Palmer v. State
438 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Theophile v. State
967 So. 2d 948 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Jarvis v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-jarvis-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.