WILLIAM SHAUN JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Jordan appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that two consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences for aggravated assault with a firearm imposed during a single criminal episode violated Florida law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the claim was not moot despite Jordan having already served the mandatory minimums, and determining that the record was insufficient to resolve whether consecutive mandatory sentences for multiple counts arising from one episode were illegal.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the claim was not moot because Jordan is still serving his 30-year sentence for the murder conviction and has not yet completed service of his consecutive sentences, and that the trial court must conduct further proceedings to determine whether the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode are illegal.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is not moot if the defendant has not yet begun serving the challenged consecutive mandatory minimum sentences.
[2] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode may constitute an illegal sentence.
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 motion was not successive... Although the State acknowledges that the trial court erred in denying the motion on this basis, it asserts that we should nevertheless affirm on the basis that Jordan can suffer no prejudice as he has already served the two three-year minimum mandatory sentences, thus mooting the issue. We do not agree.”
Establishes that the appellate court rejected the mootness argument and the State's concession that the trial court's reasoning was erroneous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJordan was convicted in 1996 of attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer and two counts of aggravated assault on different law enfo…
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 Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
William Shaun Jordan (“Jordan”) fileda motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, he alleged that his sentences for these offenses (committed in 1995) were illegal because the'two thrée-year minimum mandatory sentences (for two aggravated assaults with a firearm) were imposed consecutively, even though they arose from a single criminal episode.
, The trial court summarily denied the motion, concluding that the motion was successive and frivolous. On appeal, the State properly concedes that the motion was not successive. Although the State acknowledges that the trial court erred in denying the motion on this basis, it asserts that we should nevertheless affirm on the basis that Jordan can suffer no prejudice as he has.already served the two three-year minimum mandatory sentences, thus mooting the issue. We do not agree.
Jordan was charged by information with three crimes committed in January 1996: one count of attempted, first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, and-two counts .of aggravated assault on two different- law enforcement officers. Following trial, Jordan Was convicted -and sentenced as follows:
Count One
Attempted Second-Degree Murder of. a Law Enforcement Officer with a Fire- . arm (upon Officer Macken): thirty years in prison with a three-year minimum mandatory 1;
Count Two
Aggravated Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer with a Firearm (upon Officer Gallagher): five years in prison with á three-year minimum mandatory, to be served consecutively to the sentence in Count One; and
Count Three
Aggravated Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer with a Firearm (upon Officer Guerrier): five years in prison with a three-year minimum mandatory, to be *821served consecutively to the sentences in Counts One and Two.
As a result, it would appear Jordan té currently serving his 30-year sentence for Count One,2 and has not yet begun serving either of his consecutive sentences (including the minimum mandatory portions) for Counts Two and Three. The claim' is therefore not moot. Moreover, we cannot determine from the record provided whether the consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences for multiple counts of aggravated assault with a firearm were allegedly committed during a single criminal episode and whether such sentences are illegal.3
We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct any further hearing as necessary or to enter an order with record attachments conclusively establishing Jordan is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. State, 237 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…cord provided whether the consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences for multiple counts of aggravated assault with a firearm were allegedly committed during a single criminal episode and whether such sentences are illegal." Jordan v. State, 182 So. 3d 819, 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). This Court remanded "for the [trial] court to conduct any further hearing as necessary or to enter an order with record attachments conclusively establishing Jordan is not entitled to relief." Id. On remand, on March 15, 20…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sousa, 903 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2005)