Harrison, Mardi: Supreme Court of Florida Cases

Defendant, who was 15 years old at time of her offense, was convicted of murder in the first degree and received a mandatory life sentence without parole. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. After issuance of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, defendant moved for postconviction relief and/or to correct illegal sentence, seeking resentencing after an individualized sentencing hearing. The Circuit Court, Bay County, Brantley S. Clark, Jr., J., denied motion. Defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal, 111 So.3d 973, held that Miller did not apply retroactively.
Holdings: On certification, the Supreme Court, Pariente, J., held that:
(1) Miller applied retroactively, and thus, juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final prior to the decision could seek collateral relief based on it, and
(2) resentencing proceeding is warranted when a juvenile seeks postconviction relief from sentence that was unconstitutional under Miller.
Quashed and remanded.

Excerpt from Westlaw

Juvenile defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Brevard County, Charles G. Crawford, J., of first-degree felony murder, robbery with a firearm while inflicting death, and two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed. While appeal was pending, defendant filed motion to correct sentence, asserting statutory sentencing scheme was unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. The trial court resentenced defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Lawson, J., 121 So.3d 1130, affirmed in part, remanded with instructions in part, and certified question.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Pariente, J., held that appropriate remedy for defendant's unconstitutional sentence was to apply juvenile sentencing statutes, abrogating Rodriguez–Giudicelli v. State, 143 So.3d 947.
Question answered, underlying decision quashed, and remanded for resentencing with instructions.

Excerpt from Westlaw

Fourteen-year-old juvenile, who was charged as an adult, pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court to attempted first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery, and aggravated battery, and he appealed. The First District Court of Appeal, 93 So.3d 360, affirmed and certified question to Supreme Court.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that seventy-year prison sentence for juvenile nonhomicide offender did not provide a meaningful opportunity for early release, and therefore, juvenile's prison sentence was unconstitutional.
Certified question answered; decision on review quashed; and case remanded.

Excerpt from Westlaw

Juvenile, who was tried as adult, was convicted in the Circuit Court, Orange County, Julie H. O'Kane, J., of sexual battery, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and burglary of a dwelling, arising out of acts against a single victim when he was 17 years of age. Juvenile appealed. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, Griffin, J., 82 So.3d 1084, affirmed, and appeal was taken.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Perry, J., held that juvenile nonhomicide offender's aggregate sentence, which totaled ninety years, was unconstitutional; abrogating Young v. State, 110 So.3d 931 and Guzman v. State, 110 So.3d 480.
So ordered.

Excerpt from Westlaw