Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-01-2020

Case Style:

Brandon Jordan vs State of Florida

Case Number: 20-1895

Judge: Deland, FL


Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Free National Lawyer Directory


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.


Jacksonville, FL - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Brandon Jordan with arguing that his consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are illegal because his crimes involved one victim and a single criminal episode.

Following a jury trial, Jordan was convicted of second-degree
murder and armed robbery. The jury found that Jordan actually
possessed and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or
death on the murder count and that he actually possessed and
discharged a firearm on the armed robbery count. The trial court
sentenced him under section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (2008),
also known as the 10-20-Life statute. Jordan received life
sentences in prison on both counts, with a twenty-five-year
minimum mandatory term on the murder count and a twenty-year
minimum mandatory term on the armed robbery count. The trial
court imposed Jordan’s sentences and minimum mandatory terms
While his direct appeal was pending, Jordan filed a rule
3.800(b) motion challenging the trial court’s decision to impose
consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. The trial court denied
Jordan’s motion on the merits. And this Court affirmed his
judgment and sentence on direct appeal. Jordan v. State, 115 So.
3d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (unpublished table decision).
Jordan raised the identical sentencing claim in his rule
3.800(a) motion. That claim was properly denied.
First, Jordan could not raise the same sentencing claim in
successive postconviction motions. See Jenkins v. State, 749 So. 2d
527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The claim Jordan raised in his rule
3.800(a) motion is identical to the claim he raised in his prior rule
3.800(b) motion. Thus, collateral estoppel applies to his claim. See
Johnson v. State, No. 1D19-1973, 2020 WL 5509704, at *2 (Fla. 1st
DCA Sept. 12, 2020) (“Collateral estoppel applies in postconviction
proceedings and precludes a party from rearguing ‘the same issue
argued in a prior motion’ unless a manifest injustice would occur.”
(quoting State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003))).
Second, even if collateral estoppel did not apply, Jordan’s
challenge to his consecutive sentences lacks merit. In Miller v.
State, 265 So. 3d 457, 459 (Fla. 2018), the supreme court held that
the 10-20-Life statute “permits consecutive sentences at judicial
discretion for specified crimes committed in a single criminal
episode with either multiple victims or injuries.” Here, the record
shows that Jordan shot the victim twice, once in the head and once
in the back. The shot to the victim’s back fractured his spine and
injured his spinal cord. The bullet from that gunshot also went
through his aorta, his esophagus, then it fractured his clavicle and
bruised his right lung before the bullet left the victim’s body. As to
the other gunshot, the bullet entered the victim’s skull, injuring all
the soft tissue of the brain and causing injury to the
cardiorespiratory centers of the brain. Because the victim
sustained multiple injuries, the trial court had discretion to
sentence Jordan to consecutive terms. And so, the trial court
properly denied his postconviction motion.


Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case