State of Florida v. James Nathaniel Marshall
214 So. 3d 716
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marshall was convicted by jury of aggravated battery with great bodily harm by discharging a firearm (count II), aggravated assault by threat with a firearm (count III), and shooting at or into an occupied vehicle (count VI).
- Initial sentence: 25 years on count II, time served on count III, and 78.1 months on count VI to run concurrently with count II.
- While the appeal was pending, Marshall moved under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2) to correct sentencing error; the State conceded error and Marshall was resentenced on count II.
- At resentencing the trial court imposed a 10-year term with a 10-year minimum mandatory on count II and declined to restructure the concurrency, leaving count II concurrent with count VI.
- The State cross-appealed, arguing section 775.087(2)(d) required the qualifying offense (aggravated battery) to run consecutively to the non-qualifying offense (shooting into an occupied vehicle).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by running the §775.087 qualifying sentence (count II) concurrently with a non-qualifying sentence (count VI) | State: §775.087(2)(d) requires minimum-mandatory sentences for qualifying firearm offenses be imposed consecutively to any other felony sentence | Marshall: Law-of-the-case and prior concurrent structure bound the court; he had an expectation in finality after initial sentencing | Reversed: §775.087(2)(d) mandates consecutive sentences for qualifying counts; trial court erred and must resentence count II to run consecutively to count VI |
| Whether law-of-the-case barred restructuring sentence after successful postconviction correction | Marshall: Resentencing must preserve prior concurrent structure under law-of-the-case | State: Law-of-the-case applies only to issues decided on appeal and does not bar restructuring; postconviction corrections can change structure absent constitutional violation | Rejected Marshall: Law-of-the-case does not apply; court free to impose consecutive sentence on resentencing |
| Whether resentencing to impose consecutive sentence was vindictive or increased overall term | Marshall: Altering structure could be punitive/vindictive | State: Consecutive requirement derives from statute; restructuring permitted if not constitutionally vindictive | No vindictiveness found; statutory mandate controls |
| Standard of review for legality of sentence | — | — | Reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 199 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (standard of review for sentence legality is de novo)
- Martin v. State, 190 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (qualifying §775.087 sentences must run consecutively to other felony sentences)
- Cunningham v. State, 22 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (trial court free on resentencing to run corrected sentences consecutively or concurrently to other counts)
- Finethy v. State, 962 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (trial court may restructure sentences after postconviction relief absent constitutional vindictiveness)
- Hentze v. Denys, 88 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (law-of-the-case doctrine limited to issues decided on appeal)
- State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (discussion of scope of law-of-the-case doctrine)