Falcon v. State, 111 So. 3d 973

Falcon, 15, received mandatory life without parole for first‑degree murder in 1999.
Falcon sought postconviction relief in 2012 arguing Miller v. Alabama should be retroactive and require resentencing.
Trial court denied relief, relying on Gonzalez v. State and Geter v. State that Miller is not retroactive on collateral review.
This Court reaffirmed Gonzalez controls in Florida but acknowledged deep federal/state divisions on the retroactivity issue.
The court affirmed and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court about Miller’s retroactive effect for juvenile offenders.
Procedural posture centers on whether Miller’s rule applies retroactively and whether a sua sponte question should be posed to the supreme court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Miller retroactive on collateral review?	Falcon	Falcon relies on Gonzalez; Miller not retroactive under Florida law	Not retroactive under Gonzalez; affirmed denial and certified question to supreme court.
Should Gonzalez control retroactivity in Florida?	Falcon seeks Gonzalez‑based retroactivity	Gonzalez controls in district; Miller retroactivity unsettled	Gonzalez controls for this district, supporting denial of retroactive relief.
Whether the court should certify the retroactivity question to the Florida Supreme Court?	Falcon argues for clarity given divided authority	Court should avoid interlocutory certification	Question certified under Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v) for potential supreme court review.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing)
Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (controls retroactivity in Florida on Miller issue)
State v. Simmons, 99 So.3d 28 (La. 2012) (retroactive application of Miller under Louisiana law)
People v. Morfin, 981 N.E.2d 1010 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (Miller retroactive; requires sentencing hearing for juveniles)