189 So. 3d 342
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant (age 16 years, 10 months at offense) convicted of carjacking with a firearm, attempted second-degree murder (count 2), and attempted armed robbery. Originally received life on count 2; resentenced on count 2 under Graham to 35 years (25-year mandatory minimum). Aggregate sentence totals 55 years.
- Victim of count 2 was seriously and permanently injured (paralysis, ongoing medical issues); victim’s family testified at resentencing.
- Appellant sought further resentencing/relief under Graham and the juvenile-sentencing reforms enacted as Chapter 2014-220 (statutory revisions to §§ 775.082 and 921.1402), which provide a sentence-review mechanism after 20 years for qualifying juvenile offenders.
- Trial court found aggregate 55-year sentence was not a de facto life sentence (release age below actuarial life expectancy) and declined to apply the 2014 statute retroactively; resentencing judgment affirmed.
- Majority relied on district-court precedent (Lambert, Abrakata, Kelsey) holding term-of-years sentences that produce release before or within life expectancy are not de facto life sentences and thus constitutional; concurrence disagreed on retroactivity and urged allowing a 3.850 collateral motion to secure the 20-year review.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant’s 35-year term (aggregate 55 yrs) is a de facto life sentence under Graham/Miller | 35/55 years effectively function as life; entitles him to Graham remedies and possibly full application of 2014 reforms | Sentence yields release before/within life expectancy, so not de facto life and constitutional | Court: Not a de facto life sentence; constitutional; affirmed |
| Whether Chapter 2014-220’s 20-year sentence-review (§§775.082(3)(c), 921.1402(2)(d)) applies retroactively to offenses committed before July 1, 2014 | Appellant/concurring judge: statute should apply (statutory construction/lenity and Eighth Amendment concerns) | State/majority: statutory text limits application to offenses after July 1, 2014; Savings Clause bars retroactivity | Court: Statute does not apply retroactively; Savings Clause and binding precedent control; no relief |
| Whether Horsley/Henry require application of review mechanism where resentenced under Graham though original statute was unconstitutional | Appellant/concurring: Horsley and Henry support full remedial application (include 20-yr review) because original life scheme violated Eighth Amendment | Majority: Horsley applied where sentence remained unconstitutional; here resentenced term is constitutional so Horsley/Henry do not mandate further relief | Court: Horsley/Henry inapplicable because Appellant’s current sentence is constitutional |
| Whether Appellant may pursue collateral relief (rule 3.850) seeking sentence review despite appellate affirmance | Appellant/concurring: should be allowed to file 3.850 to assert unconstitutionality/lack of review | State/majority: statutory/constitutional limits preclude relief absent unconstitutionality | Concurrence (Bilbrey): would permit filing of 3.850 motion; majority did not reach this relief but affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile nonhomicide life sentences are unconstitutional)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla. 2015) (applied Chapter 2014-220 retroactively where sentence unconstitutional under Miller)
- Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015) (juvenile 90-year sentence unconstitutional; entitled to resentencing under ch. 2014-220)
- Lambert v. State, 170 So.3d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (term-of-years that permits release within life expectancy not de facto life)
- Abrakata v. State, 168 So.3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same)
- Kelsey v. State, 183 So.3d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (same)