Guzman v. State
68 So. 3d 295
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- At age fourteen, the defendant committed several violent robberies and was charged as an adult on multiple counts, ultimately entering an open guilty plea on all charges.
- The court imposed juvenile sanctions culminating in a plan: residential commitment with juvenile probation, then at the defendant’s nineteenth birthday, transition to fifteen years of adult probation on the life felony, with no appeal by the defendant.
- After turning eighteen, the defendant was charged with kidnapping/false imprisonment; a violation of probation hearing occurred based partly on evidence from the earlier trial.
- The court found probation violated; the jury convicted the defendant of the kidnapping; at sentencing, the court imposed life-in-prison sentences on the two offenses.
- The trial court denied a Rule 3.800(b) motion challenging the life sentences as cruel and unusual punishment; it distinguished Graham and noted the kidnapping occurred after eighteen.
- The issue on appeal is whether the life sentence for a non-homicide crime committed by a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment; the court reviews de novo and relies on Graham v. Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does life without parole for a non-homicide offense by a juvenile violate Graham? | Graham controls; juveniles cannot receive life without parole for non-homicide crimes. | Distinction exists because the probation violation relates to offenses committed at fourteen, while the homicide-like act occurred later; still, the sentence should be upheld. | Yes; life without parole for non-homicide juvenile offenses violates the Eighth Amendment; remand for resentencing on the probation violation. |
| Is the case distinguishable from Graham due to the defendant being eighteen at the later offense? | Graham prohibits LWP for non-homicide offenses by juveniles; timing of later offense is irrelevant to the sentence for fourteen-year-old conduct. | The later offense occurred after eighteen, creating a different basis for the life sentence; invalid to apply Graham to the earlier conduct only. | No; Graham applies to the initial juvenile conduct; cannot impose a life sentence for fourteen-year-old crimes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (life without parole for non-homicide juvenile offenses unconstitutional)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (juveniles have diminished culpability and are more capable of reform)
- Lavrrick v. State, 45 So.3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reverses life sentence for eighteen-year-old offender relating to juvenile offenses)
- Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277 (Fla.2004) (de novo review in post-conviction sentencing challenges)