Geter v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10084
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2000 juvenile appellant Geter was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced under Florida law to mandatory life imprisonment without parole; no individualized sentencing hearing occurred.
- Geter’s conviction and mandatory LWOP sentence became final on direct appeal in 2004; subsequent postconviction motions were denied.
- In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, holding mandatory life-without-parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment.
- Geter filed a pro se postconviction motion arguing Miller applies retroactively to cases final on direct appeal and requested an individualized sentencing proceeding; the trial court denied relief and a DCA panel affirmed that Miller is not retroactive.
- The dissenting opinion (Judge Emas) urges rehearing en banc and certification to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing Miller should be applied retroactively under Florida’s Witt test (and that federal precedent and Miller’s posture signal retroactivity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller’s rule applies retroactively to cases final on direct appeal | Miller should apply retroactively because (1) Miller was applied to a defendant whose case was final, (2) Miller draws on death-penalty precedent that Florida has applied retroactively, and (3) Miller is a fundamental change under Witt | Miller should not be retroactive; panel held Miller is procedural and a mere evolutionary refinement (no retroactivity) | Motion for rehearing en banc denied; DCA panel had held Miller not retroactive; dissent would grant rehearing en banc and certification |
| Whether Miller announces a substantive rather than merely procedural rule | Miller is substantive: it prevents imposing the harshest punishment on juveniles without individualized consideration, analogous to capital sentencing rules (Lockett/Woodson/Eddings) | Characterizing Miller as procedural (a new sentencing process) supports nonretroactivity | Dissent finds Miller substantive and of fundamental significance warranting retroactivity under Witt |
| Significance of Miller’s procedural posture (consolidated cases including one final case) | Because Miller was applied to Jackson whose case was final, the Supreme Court signaled intent for retroactive collateral application | The panel did not accept that posture as controlling for retroactivity in Florida | Dissent treats application to Jackson as evidence Miller should be applied retroactively on collateral review |
| Whether Florida should continue to apply Witt or adopt federal Teague for retroactivity | Dissent urges Florida Supreme Court to adopt Teague where rules emanate from U.S. Supreme Court; Witt may produce divergence | Current Florida precedent applies Witt (more expansive than Teague) | Dissent recommends reconsideration of Witt; court below applied Witt but denied retroactivity; rehearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory juvenile LWOP unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing consideration)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (sentencer must be able to consider any relevant mitigating evidence)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (mandatory death sentences unconstitutional for failing to consider individual character and circumstances)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (sentencer may not refuse to consider mitigating evidence)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (federal retroactivity framework for new rules of criminal procedure)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (Florida retroactivity test: rule must emanate from high court, be constitutional, and be of fundamental significance)