LAW OFFICE OF
WILLIAM MALLORY KENT

Federal Criminal Appeals 
Florida Criminal Appeals
Federal Habeas - 2255 - 2254 and
Florida Rule 3.850 - Rule 3.800
Post-Conviction Relief Attorney

1932 Perry Place
Jacksonville, Florida 32207

904-398-8000
904-348-3124 Fax
Email Contact - Click Here  

APPEALS AND POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
SENTENCING ASSISTANCE 
Federal and State Criminal Trial Practice

William Mallory Kent is a noted appellate and criminal trial lawyer, having argued and won the precedent setting federal sentencing guidelines case, Stinson v. United States before the United States Supreme Court, which has been cited by hundreds of courts in cases across the country.  He has numerous other  published appellate decisions to his credit, including United States v. Willie Washington, the Eleventh Circuit case which held that drug enforcement bus passenger searches were per se unconstitutional.  This decision, which  was profiled by Harvard Law Review, resulted in many similar convictions being set aside.

William Mallory Kent has a reputation for excellence in federal and state appeals and post-conviction relief, from direct appeal of sentencing or trial errors, to subsequent habeas motions under 28 U. S. C. Sections 2241, 2254, 2255, or Rule 60(b), as well as comparable state provisions such as Rule 3.800 and Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Habeas Petitions for Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel.  

William Mallory Kent is also noted for his sentencing expertise and is often consulted or retained just for the sentencing proceeding and sentencing appeal.  For more information about how he can assist you with sentencing, or an appeal or post-conviction relief matter, federal or state, call Mr. Kent at 904-355-1890 or email him Email Contact - Click Here.  For additional general appellate information click on Appeal Information.

To see a sample recent federal brief, click here.  To see more sample briefs, state and federal go to our brief bank page.

A Selection of Some of William Kent's Reported Appellate Cases:

Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993); United States v. Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir. en banc 1994); United States v. Herman Venske, William McCorkle, et al. 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 765, 2002 WL 1491640 (11th Cir. July 12, 2002); United States v. Bull, 214 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. MacAllister, 160 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Washington, 151 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Grimes, 142 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Lopez-Iraeta, 136 F.3d 143 (11th Cir. 1997); Anderson v. Singletary, 111 F.3d 801 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hofierka, 92 F.3d 108 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Wescott, 83 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357 (as amended and as modified on denial of rehearing)(11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Brown, 71, F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Stinson, 30 F.3d 121 (11thCir. 1994); United States v. Be.., 22 F.3d 274 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Williams 958 F.2d 337 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Stinson, 957 F.2d 813 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Young, 953 F.2d 1288 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Stinson, 943 F.2d 1268 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Gilbert, 942 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Lazarchik, 924 F.2d 211 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. McCorkle, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D.Fl. 2001); United States v. McCorkle, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D.Fl. 2000); United States v. McCorkle, 78 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D. Fl. 1999); United States v. Grimes, 911 F. Supp 1485 (M.D.Fl. 1995); Castro v. State, 794 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001); Holcombe v. State, 553 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

William Kent has over twenty-five years experience as an attorney.  He graduated from Harvard University with honors, then returned to his home in Florida to attend the University of Florida College of Law, graduating with honors in 1978.  Prior to starting his boutique criminal defense practice, Mr. Kent served for ten years as an Assistant Federal Defender handling a multitude of cases across the largest district in the United States.  He is experienced in all phases of federal practice, from pre-indictment consultations, grand jury practice, motion hearings, and pretrial negotiations, to trials and appeals.  

Before starting criminal defense practice, Mr. Kent was a senior associate at Rogers & Wells, now the world's largest law firm, Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, where he handled complex corporate investment matters.  

FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIAL DEFENSE

Mr. Kent's current practice focus is on appeals and post-conviction relief in criminal cases, which generally comprise 85% or more of his case load, but In the past fifteen years, Mr. Kent has also served as lead trial counsel in numerous federal criminal cases of all types, obtaining successful outcomes in cases ranging from bank fraud to drug conspiracy.  

His unique combination of trial, appellate and complex corporate experience gives him a special advantage in advising his clients on the best course of action when confronted with federal criminal charges. 

You can put this training, education and experience to work for you in your case.  Call 904-355-1890 or email Mr. Kent [Email Contact - click here] for a free initial consultation.  

Recent Appellate and Post-conviction Wins [1]

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.  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 904-355-1890 to schedule an appointment or email your inquiry to: Email Contact - Click Here.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CHECK THE LINKS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS BELOW