JAVARUS LAMONT MORGAN, 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.
Morgan appeals the denial of his motion to vacate an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Walton v. State and Williams v. State, which held that consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute is impermissible when offenses arise from the same criminal episode and no firearm was discharged.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of Morgan's motion to vacate and remanded for the trial court to permit Morgan to file an amended motion affirmatively alleging and establishing that court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief, consistent with Williams v. State and Walton v. State, which prohibit consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum terms for firearm offenses arising from the same criminal episode when no firearm was discharged.
[1] A defendant seeking to vacate an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) bears the burden of demonstrating an entitlement to relief on the face…
[2] A defendant may be permitted to file an amended motion to vacate an illegal sentence to affirmatively allege and establish entitlement to relief based on the court record…
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“consecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged”
Establishes the legal standard from Williams and Walton that governs Morgan's sentencing claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorgan entered a negotiated plea to armed sexual battery and armed robbery, with allegations that he possessed a firearm during commission of both off…
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 Motion To Vacate Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
This case returns to us from the Florida Supreme Court, which quashed our earlier decision1 affirming the trial court’s denial of Morgan’s motion to vacate illegal sentence, and remanded for reconsideration in light of the court’s subsequent decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016) and Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016);2 Morgan v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680, 2017 WL 2302326 (Fla. May 26, 2017).
Following remand, this court ordered supplemental briefing by the parties. Having considered those supplemental briefs, and in light of Walton and Williams, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Morgan’s motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and remand this cause to the trial court to permit Morgan to file, within sixty days, an amended motion, for the purpose of affirmatively alleging and establishing “that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief’ on the claim raised in Morgan’s original motion.3 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a); Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2011) (observing: “The State .has no obligation to refute a defendant’s claim raised under rule 3.800(a). .On the contrary, ‘the burden [is on] the petitioner to demonstrate an entitlement-to relief- on the face of the record’”) (quoting Williams v. State, 957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla. 2007)).
The trial court shall thereafter hold such hearings as may be appropriate to render a final order upon Morgan’s amended motion.4
*1196Given this court’s prior order appointing counsel for Morgan on this appeal, the trial court shall appoint conflict-free counsel to represent Morgan during the proceedings on remand.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…of minimum mandatory sentences under the 10- 20-life statute when a firearm is possessed but not discharged. See Morgan v. State, 137 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), decision quashed, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. May 26, 2017); and Morgan v. State, 233 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Morgan II”). After the remand by the Florida Supreme Court, Morgan II reversed the prior trial court order denying Morgan’s motion on that issue. We remanded the case to the trial court to permit Morgan to file an amended moti…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007)
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016)
- Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 137 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Gaspard, 137 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)