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. 01-21587B, Alan S. Fine, Judge.
J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
Lamont Morgan ("Morgan") appeals an order denying
two motions to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). This is the third time
this Court has considered one of the two issues raised by
Morgan, the so-called "stacking" 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)
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 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." Morgan II, 233 So.3d at 1195.
amended his motion to correct illegal sentence in February
2018, raising two legal issues in two separate motions under
Rule 3.800, and attaching documents from the record in the
criminal case (including Morgan's 2003 plea). In the
first motion, Morgan contended that the criminal case record
established that his two consecutive minimum mandatory
sentences under the 10-20-life statute were illegal
under Walton v. State, 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016), and
Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla. 2016). These
cases hold that "[g]enerally, 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." Williams, 186 So.3d at 993.
second amended motion under Rule 3.800, Morgan claimed
entitlement to a new sentencing hearing under Graham v.
Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and applicable Florida
precedent following Graham. It is undisputed that
Morgan received a sentence exceeding 20 years for
non-homicide crimes committed when Morgan was a juvenile.
trial court heard the motions during three separate sessions
in 2018. In November 2018, the trial court entered a
closely-reasoned, seven-page order denying both
motions. This appeal followed.
a claim of error may be raised in a motion to correct illegal
sentence under rule 3.800(a) is a pure question of law
subject to de novo review." Martinez v. State,
211 So.3d 989, 991 n.4 (Fla. 2017).
required by the text of Rule 3.800 and the decisional law
applying it, the trial court acknowledged that its evaluation
of the Williams motion was restricted to a review of
"the non-hearsay portion of the court records to
determine if they establish whether the two offenses for
which the consecutive minimum mandatory sentences were
imposed were part of a single criminal episode." (citing
Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2002)). In an
effort to demonstrate that the two offenses were part of a
single criminal episode, Morgan's amended motion relied
on the discovery depositions of the two victims. These were
not trial transcripts (there was no ...