Burney v. State
211 So. 3d 1106
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Randall T. Burney, convicted of burglary as a juvenile, was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.
- Burney filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2) motion seeking resentencing under chapter 2014-220, arguing his life-with-parole sentence violated Graham v. Florida and related Florida precedent.
- The postconviction court summarily denied the motion based on then-controlling district-court precedent holding juvenile life-with-parole did not implicate Graham/Miller constraints.
- While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court quashed Atwell and held Florida’s parole scheme fails to provide the individualized consideration required by Miller and denies a meaningful opportunity for release under Graham.
- Applying Atwell, the Second District concluded Burney’s life-with-parole sentence for a juvenile nonhomicide offense is unconstitutional and remanded for resentencing under sections 921.1401–.1402.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile nonhomicide sentence of life with parole violates Graham and requires resentencing | Burney: life-with-parole for juvenile burglary denies meaningful opportunity for release; entitles him to resentencing under 2014 reforms | State: existing precedent held life-with-parole did not trigger Graham/Miller protections | Court: Graham and Florida Supreme Court’s Atwell compel resentencing under chapters 921.1401–.1402 |
| Whether the 2-year rule for 3.850 motions is excused by newly-recognized retroactive rights | Burney: Graham/Miller-based holdings are newly established constitutional rules entitled to retroactive relief under rule 3.850(b)(2) | State: relied on pre-Atwell decisions denying relief | Court: Atwell establishes the right and retroactivity, so the time bar does not preclude relief |
| Whether Florida’s parole scheme affords individualized consideration required by Miller | Burney: parole system does not provide required individualized sentencing or meaningful review | State: previously argued parole sufficed under earlier district decisions | Court: Florida’s parole system does not provide Miller-required individualized consideration; sentence is effectively indistinguishable from life without parole |
| Remedy: resentencing or other relief | Burney: resentencing under chapter 2014-220 to evaluate youth-related factors | State: opposed based on prior controlling precedent | Court: reversed denial of 3.850 and remanded for resentencing under the juvenile-sentencing statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile nonhomicide offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole; need meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) (Florida parole scheme fails to provide Miller-required individualized consideration; life-with-parole for juveniles can be unconstitutional)
- Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015) (Graham implicated when juvenile nonhomicide sentence affords no meaningful opportunity for release)
- McPherson v. State, 138 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (prior district-court precedent holding juvenile life-with-parole did not implicate Graham)