Angelo Atwell v. State of Florida
197 So. 3d 1040
| Fla. | 2016Background
- In 1990, 16-year-old Angelo Atwell committed armed robbery and first‑degree murder; he was convicted in 1992. He received life without parole for robbery and life with parole eligibility after 25 years for murder under the pre‑1994 statute.
- Under Florida’s parole guidelines the Commission set Atwell’s presumptive parole release date at December 27, 2130 (≈140 years after the crime), a date effectively ensuring he will die in prison.
- Atwell sought postconviction relief under Miller v. Alabama, arguing his sentence for first‑degree murder was unconstitutional because he received no individualized consideration of youth.
- The trial court denied relief; the Fourth DCA affirmed, holding Miller applies only to mandatory life without parole sentences. The Florida Supreme Court granted review.
- The Florida Supreme Court held the parole system and Atwell’s effective sentence are the practical equivalent of life without parole and remanded for resentencing under the juvenile sentencing scheme enacted in 2014 (chapter 2014‑220, §§775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla. Stat.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atwell’s life sentence with parole eligibility complies with Miller v. Alabama | Atwell: Florida’s parole scheme gives no meaningful individualized consideration of youth; his 140‑year presumptive date is the practical equivalent of LWOP and violates Miller. | State: Miller applies only to mandatory LWOP; parole eligibility defeats Miller claim. | Held: Majority rejects State’s narrow reading; sentence is the practical equivalent of LWOP and unconstitutional under Miller; remand for resentencing under chapter 2014‑220. |
| Whether Florida’s parole system affords Miller‑required individualized consideration | Atwell: Parole guidelines emphasize offense seriousness and prior record, not youth; enumerated mitigating factors don’t account for juvenile characteristics. | State: Parole process includes periodic reviews and discretion; eligibility constitutes a meaningful opportunity for release. | Held: Parole procedure fails to require consideration of youth and attendant characteristics per Miller and Montgomery; inadequate to satisfy Eighth Amendment. |
| Remedy for juveniles sentenced before Miller | Atwell: Those sentenced before Miller who effectively face LWOP must receive resentencing or meaningful review that considers youth. | State: Existing parole reviews and judicial remedies suffice; do not require wholesale resentencing. | Held: Consistent with this Court’s precedent (Horsley, Falcon), remedy is resentencing under the 2014 juvenile scheme which mandates consideration of Miller factors and judicial review after 25 years. |
| Retroactivity and uniformity of relief | Atwell: Miller applies retroactively; fairness demands similar treatment for indistinguishable juveniles. | State: N/A (argument centered on scope of Miller). | Held: Miller applies retroactively (as in Falcon and Montgomery); legislative framework indicates the proper remedy is the 2014 resentencing procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory life without parole for juveniles; sentencer must consider youth and attendant characteristics)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders; youth matters for severity of punishment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced substantive rule applicable retroactively; states must provide a chance to show lack of irreparable corruption)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed as juveniles; recognizes diminished culpability and greater capacity for change)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla. 2015) (Florida remedy for unconstitutional juvenile sentences is resentencing under chapter 2014‑220)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954 (Fla. 2015) (Miller applies retroactively to final sentences; fairness requires uniform remedies)
- Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015) (Graham’s spirit applies beyond literal life‑denominations; courts must consider practical effect of lengthy sentences on juveniles)
- Gridine v. State, 175 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2015) (lengthy term‑of‑years sentences that deny meaningful opportunity for release can violate Graham)
- Atwell v. State, 128 So.3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (DCA decision affirmed trial court denial of Miller relief; reversed by Florida Supreme Court)