Alfred E. Hawkins v. State of Florida
219 So. 3d 982
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant (17 at the time) was convicted after jury trial of: first-degree murder with a firearm (count I), armed robbery with a firearm (count II), and tampering with physical evidence (count III) following the death of Alex Blas.
- Appellant moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts; trial court denied the motion and convictions were affirmed as supported by legally sufficient evidence under de novo review.
- The trial court imposed life sentences for the murder and the robbery counts and conducted an individualized sentencing hearing considering section 921.1401 factors added after Miller v. Alabama.
- The court ordered a “sentence review hearing” after 25 years under section 921.1402, referencing the capital (homicide) conviction, but the order did not clearly state whether the review applied to the nonhomicide life sentence (robbery).
- The principal legal question became whether a juvenile’s life sentence for a nonhomicide offense (robbery) complied with Graham v. Florida absent a clear, meaningful opportunity for early release; the murder life sentence and other convictions were upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Hawkins argued acquittal should be entered for counts I–III | State maintained evidence supported convictions | Sufficiency affirmed; convictions stand (de novo review) |
| Constitutionality of life sentence for juvenile murder (count I) | Hawkins argued life violates Eighth Amendment/Art. I, § 17 for juveniles | State relied on individualized sentencing and statutory review scheme | Life sentence for homicide upheld as constitutional under Miller framework and § 921.1401/1402 |
| Constitutionality of life sentence for juvenile nonhomicide (robbery, count II) | Hawkins argued Graham bars life without meaningful parole opportunity even when homicide occurred in same episode | State argued § 921.1402 review can satisfy Graham if applied | Life sentence for robbery reversed and remanded because the order did not clearly provide meaningful early-review opportunity |
| Remedy | Hawkins sought vacatur or resentencing for nonhomicide life term | State requested affirmation or clarification that review applied to both counts | Court remanded for resentencing/clarified that § 921.1402 judicial review must apply to juvenile nonhomicide life terms to satisfy Graham |
Key Cases Cited
- Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2010) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (bar on life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders absent meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
- Jackson v. State, 187 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding Graham applies even when juvenile also committed homicide in same episode)
- Lawton v. State, 181 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2015) (Florida Supreme Court rejecting a homicide-case exception to Graham)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015) (holding Florida’s post-Miller review scheme can satisfy juvenile-sentencing constitutional requirements)
- Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 2016) (acknowledging the new Florida sentencing scheme contemplates possible life terms for juvenile nonhomicide offenders when review is provided)