final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)
from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal
No. 96-5184, Victoria R. Brennan, Judge.
William Shaun Jordan, in proper person.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
SUAREZ, LAGOA, and SCALES, JJ.
Shaun Jordan ("Jordan") appeals the denial of his
third Rule 3.800(a) post-conviction motion arguing that his
sentences are illegal because of the "stacking" of
his three mandatory minimum sentences. For the reasons stated
below, we affirm.
1996, during a drug sweep in South Miami Heights, Jordan used
a firearm against one police officer and brandished it
against two others. Jordan was charged with 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
of: (1) attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement
officer with a firearm (upon Officer Macken); (2) aggravated
assault of a law enforcement officer with a firearm (upon
Sergeant Gallagher); and (3) aggravated assault of a law
enforcement officer with a firearm (upon Officer Guerrier).
trial court sentenced Jordan to thirty years in prison on the
attempted second-degree murder conviction (Macken), a
consecutive five years in prison on the aggravated assault
(Gallagher), and another consecutive five years in prison on
the aggravated assault (Guerrier), for a total of forty
years. Each conviction carried a three-year firearm minimum
mandatory sentence to run consecutively, thereby,
"stacking" to a nine-year minimum sentence.
March 10, 2015, Jordan filed a motion (through
counsel) to correct illegal sentence pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Jordan contended
that the stacking of the minimum mandatory portions of the
three sentences was impermissible because the evidence did
not show that each use of the firearm by Jordan was a
separate transaction or episode. The motion was summarily
denied by the trial court in its order. That order was timely
appealed to this Court, and this Court reversed, as we could
not "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." 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.
remand, on March 15, 2016, the trial court entered a detailed
order denying Jordan's motion for post-conviction relief,
and attached portions of the record conclusively establishing
that Jordan was not entitled to relief. This appeal
appeal, Jordan argues the same issue raised in his March 10,
2015, motion, namely whether the "stacking" of
mandatory minimum sentences is permitted under the
circumstances of this case. The answer turns on whether the
incidents in the instant case consisted of separate criminal
episodes, or alternatively, if a single criminal episode, the
incidents caused injury to multiple ...