HABEAS CORPUS
2255, 2254, 3.850, 3.800 Petitions
LAW OFFICE OF
WILLIAM MALLORY KENT
 


Federal Criminal Appeals - Florida Criminal Appeals
Federal Habeas - 2255 - 2254 and Florida Rule 3.850 
Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief Attorney 

William Mallory Kent - Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer - Florida Criminal Appeals Lawyer - Habeas Attorney - Federal Criminal Trial Lawyer 
Click here for an audio invitation for more information.

1932 Perry Place
Jacksonville, Florida 32207-3443
904-398-8000 Telephone
904-348-3124 Fax
Email kent@williamkent.com
Table of Contents

Recent Appellate and Post-conviction Wins [1]

May 10, 2006, State agrees to concede 3.850 motion vacating 15 year minimum mandatory PRRO sentence for burglary of a dwelling.

March 23, 2006, after Federal Court of Appeals orders re-sentencing in appeal of Ecstasy Conspiracy conviction for client of Mr. Kent, district court reduces sentence from 11 years 3 months to 4 years, leaving client less than one year to serve.  See Appellate Decision here.  

Government Motion to Revoke Client's Bond in 61 Count Federal Indictment for Cocaine Conspiracy and Other Charges based on new charge of Obstruction of Justice Denied January 30, 2006 

News - November 16, 2005 Federal Court of Appeals  orders re-sentencing in appeal of Ecstasy Conspiracy conviction for client of Mr. Kent.  See Decision here

October 7, 2005 - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals grants certificate of appealability (COA) on issue of waiver of right to file federal habeas in federal criminal plea agreement and waiver of right to effective assistance of counsel.

Major Appellate Win - September 15, 2005 - Eleventh Circuit Vacates All Four Counts and 20 Year Sentence in Federal Drug and Gun Conviction and Remands for Resentencing Based on Defective Section 851 Enhancement Proceeding.

September 2005 - Florida state court grants motion to vacate plea and conviction in marijuana possession case;  state agrees to dismiss all charges.  Drugs had been found in Airport TSA search of the luggage of a traveling businessman who was then asked to deboard the airplane and was interrogated about the luggage.

March 31, 2005, trial judge grants stay of criminal case for interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds.  

March 30, 2005 federal district judge resentenced client to absolute bottom of the guidelines after remand for resentencing from court of appeals after successful appeal had resulted in mandatory life sentence based on two prior drug convictions under 21 U.S.C. 851 being vacated.  Given Booker advisory nature of guidelines, judge could have reimposed life sentence;  government asked for high end sentence.   

March 29, 2005, district court of appeal reversed repeat violence injunction based on lack of competent substantial evidence in a novel decision involving weblog writings which were treated as threatening and as an act of violence.  Click here for a copy of the decision.

March 24, 2005 federal district judge sentenced Mr. Kent's client to twelve (12) months imprisonment on a ten year minimum mandatory methamphetamine case after government filed only a two level substantial assistance motion.  The sentence reduction was based on Booker arguments presented by Mr. Kent.  The government objected to imposition of this Booker sentence, arguing that a reasonable sentence was the 41 month sentence called for under the guidelines. 

March 22, 2005 circuit judge granted a motion for rehearing on a state 3.850 motion in which Mr. Kent amended a pro se petition after the two year deadline to raise a winning Nixon v. Florida claim - client's court appointed counsel conceded guilt in closing argument without client's consent.  Mr. Kent is representing this client pro bono.  

March 22, 2005 State Attorney General conceded belated appeal habeas in a Fifth District Court of Appeal case in which the clerk of the court apparently lost the trial lawyer's notice of appeal.

February 14, 2005, Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Granted a Certificate of Appelability in Federal Habeas of a State Capital Sexual Battery Conviction on Petition for Rehearing on Two Issues:  Whether Mr. Kent's Client Was Denied His Right to a Public Trial under The Sixth Amendment When the Trial Judge Cleared the Courtroom at the State's Request When the Alleged Child Victim Testified, and Whether the Procedural Default of This Issue by Not Raising in on Direct Appeal Was Excused by Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.  Mr. Kent's Client, JEP, is Serving a Life Sentence on this Charge.  

February 14, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal Discharged its Rule to Show Cause Why this Repeat Violence Injunction Appeal Should Not be Dismissed as Moot, Accepting Mr. Kent's Argument that His Appeal of His Client's Repeat Violence Injunction was Not Moot Because it Had Expired by Law, Due to Its Collateral Consequences for His Client, ML, Including His Choice of College and Profession.

January 26, 2005, United States Attorney's Office Agrees to Reduce Felony Illegal Reentry Charge to Misdemeanor and Time Served Sentence in Response to Motion to Dismiss Predicated on Having Vacated the Underlying Drug Felony Which Was the Legal Basis for the Prior Deportation.

January 24, 2005, United States Supreme Court grants certiorari in Mr. Kent's petition for client Gerald Padmore, vacates the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and remands for consideration of United States v. Booker.  Click here for the decision of the Supreme Court.

January 4, 2005, Circuit Court Vacates DUI With Accident Conviction Based on Double Jeopardy Writ of Prohibition, Arising Out of Use Immunity From Accident Report Privilege.

December 17, 2004, County Court Chief Administrative Judge Vacates Traffic Court Conviction in Accident Case (the Judgment of Which is Admissible in the Pending Civil Action) under Rule 1.540, Relief from Judgment Due to Lack of Appellate Record.

November 30, 2004 the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and vacated a permanent injunction against repeat violence for Mr. Kent's client R.F.  Repeat violence injunctions carry some of the same stigma of a criminal conviction.  See a copy of the decision here.

September 13, 2004 Florida Circuit Court vacated a felony marijuana conviction under a Peart claim with a novel twist - the client had already been deported more than two years before filing his 3.850 motion, but filed his motion promptly upon reentry.  [The client is facing sentencing for illegal reentry in federal district court.]   The Circuit Court accepted Mr. Kent's equitable tolling argument extending the limitations period for the period of time the client was outside the United States as a result of his deportation for this offense. 

August 23, 2004 - Federal district court grants sentence reduction after government had initially taken the position that no further reduction in sentence was possible under Rule 35, resulting in first a 2255 habeas then a new Rule 35 motion.

July 24, 2004 - Motion to vacate plea in burglary case based on argument that plea was involuntary due to defendant being under medication at time of plea results in compromise settlement with state and ten year reduction in sentence.

June 30, 2004 - Florida state court sets aside guilty plea, conviction and sentence for DUI with accident based on Mr. Kent's post-conviction motion challenging inadequate plea colloquy.

May 13, 2004 - Florida Circuit Court sets aside illegal sentence for client Brandy Edwards, based on Mr. Kent's argument that the court was limited in violation of probation proceeding to imposition of a sentence of imprisonment no greater than that which had previously been suspended.  Court reduced sentence from 21 to 13 months based on this argument. 

April 8, 2004 - Eleventh Circuit Agrees with Mr. Kent's Sentencing Argument for client B. D. - B. D. was convicted of making a false statement in connection with the purchase of a number of firearms, one of which was a banned AK-47 assault weapon.  However the particular weapon was a "grandfathered" in pre-ban weapon.  Mr. Kent argued that the sentencing commission's guidelines were inconsistent with the predicate federal statute, which makes a distinction between banned versus grandfathered assault weapons.  The district court disagreed.  The difference took B. D. from what would have been a probation sentence to almost three years in prison.  In a published decision the Eleventh Circuit on April 8, 2004 agreed with Mr. Kent's argument.  

February 2, 2004, Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed mandatory life sentence imposed under drug three strikes law in cocaine conspiracy case against Mr. Kent's client Charles Coleman.  Click here to read decision.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion to withdraw plea filed after the presentence investigation report had already been completed, on the basis of a claim that the original attorney for the defendant had misadvised the defendant as to the potential application of the sentencing guidelines, despite the fact that the magistrate judge had repeatedly advised the defendant during a lengthy and extensive plea colloquy that such advice of counsel was only an estimate and if it were wrong would not be a basis to withdraw his plea.  

Twenty-two year cocaine trafficking conviction reversed by First District Court of Appeal February 6, 2003, Reyneldon Davis v. State of Florida based on illegal search and seizure of 2.2 kilograms of cocaine.  To see the winning brief of Mr. Kent click here - to see Mr. Kent's reply brief which destroyed the State's "Tipsy coachman" argument, click here.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida terminated an order of restitution in a fraud case relieving Mr. Kent's client of an approximate $100,000 restitution balance based on Mr. Kent's motion grounded on the authority of Title 18 U. S. C. Section 3664(k).  This order, which modified the client's probation, was entered approximately two years after the original sentencing. 

The Florida Fourth Judicial Circuit in its capacity as a Court of Appeals reversed on appeal the lower court's decision denying Mr. Kent's client's 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea to a fourth DUI, entered seven years earlier, resulting in the permanent, lifetime revocation of his driving license.  The appellate issue was the failure of the trial court to clearly advise the defendant of the duration of the loss of his driving privileges.  The result of this appellate decision is that the client will be entitled to the reinstatement of his driving license, which had been revoked for life.  To see the winning brief, click here.  To see Mr. Kent's reply brief which overcame the State's answer brief, click here.

A Florida County Court granted Mr. Kent's client's Brady motion under Rule 3.850 setting aside a prior no contest plea to a DUI following a minor accident based on the invalidity of the alcohol reference solutions used in certifying the accuracy of the breath test machine in the case.  The unique feature of this case was that the state had expressly advised the trial court that the breath test in this case was not subject to this Dauth challenge because it was outside the window of application of Dauth.  The state later entered into a consent order that extended the Dauth window in certain cases which included this case.  

The federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the sentencing of Mr. Kent's client Sylvestre Barrera who was convicted after trial of conspiracy to distribute a large quantity of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in an unpublished decision remanding the case for resentencing as to both an unobjected to criminal history matter and as to an objection to an  enhancement on the basis of constitutionally unreliable hearsay.  

The federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the sentence for Mr. Kent's client, infomercial king William J. McCorkle, and ordered a resentencing in a decision published July 12, 2002.  This sentencing appeal victory was accomplished despite the fact that the sentencing error had not been objected to at the trial court level by Mr. McCorkle's trial attorney, F. Lee Bailey.  Click here to read the decision.

EXPERIENCE

Mr. Kent has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1978.  He graduated from Harvard College, A.B. cum laude, 1975, and the University of Florida College of Law, J.D. with honors, 1978.  Mr. Kent has an AV rating, the highest rating available from Martindale-Hubbell.  Mr. Kent has been a continuing legal education lecturer for the Florida Bar, the Federal Criminal Justice Act training program, the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others.  Mr. Kent is a member of the Florida Bar Appellate Court Rules Committee.  He is the immediate past  President of the Northeast Florida Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. There is no charge for initial in-office or telephone consultations.  Please call 904-398-8000 to schedule an appointment or email your inquiry to: Email Contact - Click Here.  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 [Search Our Web Site] [Brief Bank] [Submit a Question] [Appellate Practice] Return to Top of Page

Blogs

• Abstract Appeal - 11th Cir. & Fl.
  
• Appellate Law & Practice
  
• Bag and Baggage
  
• Blakely Blawg
  
• Crime & Federalism
  
• Direct Appeal (10th Cir. Crim. Cases)
  
• ElectricLawyer
  
• Ernie The Attorney
  
• Fourth Amendment.com
  
• How Appealing
  
• Legal Reader
  
• MyShingle.com
  
• Public Defender Dude
  
• SCOTUSBlog
  
• Sentencing Law and Policy
  
• Shout
  
• TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
  
• Underneath Their Robes
  
• White Collar Crime Prof Blog
  

PRISON INFORMATION

Prison Handbooks:

Federal Prison Guidebook - 2002 Edition, a 350-page manual that contains comprehensive descriptions of every federal prison facility in the United States. This book, written by Alan Ellis, Esq..

Jailhouse Lawyers Manual (4th Edition) which is published by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Box B-25, Columbia University School of Law, 435 West 116th St., New York, NY 10027. 

Federal Cure (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants Federal Prison Chapter) - a non-profit organization that deals solely with issues faced by Federal inmates and their families. In addition to the Web site it maintains at www.fedcure.org, it publishes a worthwhile newsletter.

Administrative Office and Federal Judicial Center

APPEALS AND POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

General Information  Experience  Fees  Initial Consultations
More Information Home

Appeals and Post-conviction Relief Generally

Whether your case is federal or state, our office can assist you in your direct appeal or post-conviction relief.  Our practice focus is on appeals and post-conviction relief.  We have appeared in state and federal court on behalf of clients since 1978.  Mr. Kent has been counsel of record on approximately 186 criminal appeals as of September 2005, 129 federal and 57 state.  No case is too big and no case is too small; each client is equally important.  

Mr. Kent represents clients in federal courts throughout the United States and in state courts throughout Florida.  The appellate practice includes state and federal direct appeals, after trial or guilty plea, of both trial and sentencing issues, post-conviction motions of all types, including state 3.850 motions, state 3.800 motions, and appeals from the denial of such motions, federal habeas motions under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 for state inmates, and Section 2255 for federal inmates, as well as habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 where appropriate, as well as all appellate matters relating to such motions and petitions, including requests for certificates of appealability to the federal court of appeals.  Click here for more information about Appeal Options.

Experience

Mr. Kent is one of only a handful of attorneys in the State of Florida who have successfully argued a criminal case before the United States Supreme Court.  That decision, Terry Lynn Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993), had a major impact not just on the interpretation of the federal career offender sentencing provision (similar to the Florida habitual offender provision), but had a potential impact on virtually every federal sentencing, due to its holding that Sentencing Commission commentary is binding on the courts.  This case has been cited by over 700 courts in appellate decisions.  We are most proud that Stinson was cited in the Supreme Court's Booker decision which struck down the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. In part because of this case, Mr. Kent is noted for his expertise in sentencing matters.

Mr. Kent has also argued before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia en banc, meaning that the case was of such exceptional importance that all active members of the court took part in oral argument and the decision, not simply a three judge appellate panel.  United States v. William James Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir. 1994).  The Thigpen case held that a jury may not be instructed on the consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Mr. Kent's success in challenging a joint state-federal task force drug search on a Greyhound Bus in United States v. Willie Washington, 151 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1998), setting aside his client's minimum mandatory federal drug sentence in federal prison has been cited by at least 18 other cases in reported appellate decisions, was the subject of a law review article in Harvard Law Review, March 1999, and was cited by United States v. Drayton, 231 F.3d 787 (11th Cir. 2001).  The Supreme Court reversed Drayton. 

Mr. Kent is currently representing John Richard Knock, the alleged co-conspirator of Claude Duboc, in a federal habeas action under 28 U.S.C. 2255, in a challenge to the conviction and life sentence in what may have been the largest alleged drug conspiracy and forfeiture cases in federal court history.  Federal prosecutors alleged that the so-called Knock-Duboc conspiracy imported over two billion dollars of marijuana and hashish into the United States and other countries. Mr. Knock forfeited approximately thirty million dollars of cash and assets and Mr. Duboc forfeited approximately one hundred thirty million dollars cash and assets to the government. Claude Duboc was represented by F. Lee Bailey, who was ultimately disbarred based on allegations of misconduct arising out of his representation of Mr. Duboc.  Mr. Knock was represented at trial and on appeal by attorney Michael Kennedy from New York. 

Mr. Kent represented William J. McCorkle before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. William J. McCorkle, et al., a case which has been reported on the television program Dateline, in Readers Digest, and elsewhere.  Mr. McCorkle presented television infomercials on how to get rich in foreclosure real estate and was indicted for fraud and money laundering.  His trial attorney was F. Lee Bailey.  Mr. Kent obtained a resentencing for Mr. McCorkle on a plain error issue involving the incorrect application of the money laundering guidelines. Mr. Kent did not represent Mr. McCorkle at this resentencing, however, at resentencing the district court reimposed the same sentence.  That matter is pending appeal.

August 22, 2001 Mr. Kent filed the initial appeal brief in United States v. Sholam Weiss, et al., on behalf of his client, Keith Pound, the President of LifeCo Mortgage Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of National Heritage Life Insurance Company.  The alleged looting of National Heritage Life Insurance Company, which is said to have resulted in over $400,000,000 of losses, resulted in a federal indictment of a number of individuals and a nine month long trial in federal district court in Orlando.  The trial transcript in this massive case was over 35,000 pages long and presented extremely complex corporate accounting issues, which Mr. Kent's former background as a senior associate in the tax shelter department of the international law firm, Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, made Mr. Kent particularly suited to handle.  Click here to see Mr. Kent's Resume.

Fees

We do almost all cases on a "flat fee" basis, meaning the client is quoted a fee up front which is the total and final fee for the case.  This flat fee is based on the estimated time the matter will require, the complexity of the case, the experience and reputation Mr. Kent brings to the case, other work that may be required to be turned away as a result of taking on the new case, and other factors.  The success of the appeal cannot be taken into account under Florida Bar ethics rules which prohibit attorneys in criminal cases from setting fees based on the success of the representation.  Fees must be paid in full in advance of the commencement of representation.  Fees are generally non-refundable.  In addition to the attorneys fee there may be out of pocket costs associated with the case.  For example, in appeal cases we generally send the briefs to Kinko's to be copied and bound in ring-binder sets.  This cost varies but averages $100-300.  Sometimes we must copy large records or pay for copies of records on appeal.  This cost varies depends on the fee set by the applicable clerk's office.  We often use FedEx to deliver briefs and other pleadings to courts and opposing counsel.  All such out of pocket costs are passed through to the client and generally billed on a monthly basis to the client.  In almost all cases the fee agreement and scope of representation will be reflected in a written fee agreement before work is commenced.  

In post-conviction relief cases - in contrast to appeals - we may often suggest a formal review of the file before agreeing to undertake representation and the filing of a post-conviction motion, such as a 3.850 motion, 3.800 motion or a federal habeas.  Direct appeals, on the other hand, will not be preceded by a file review, but rather a fee will be quoted based on the size and scope of the record and the nature of the issues presented.

Initial Consultations

Initial consultations by telephone, at the Jacksonville jail, or in office are free of charge.  Consultations which require travel to visit a potential client in custody are billed for the time away from the office, $1,250 per half day, or $2,500 for a full day, plus any travel costs.

More Information

Call 904-398-8000 or email Mr. Kent at kent@williamkent.com for more information or to schedule an in office or telephone appointment.

HOME