Lee v. State
130 So. 3d 707
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mr. Lee, then 15, shot a van driver during a dispute over allegedly owed money, causing permanent injuries.
- He was charged as an adult with attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and convicted in 2001.
- Original sentencing classified the offense as a life felony with a 25-year minimum, resulting in life without parole.
- Graham v. Florida prompted a motion to correct an illegal sentence and resentencing in 2011 before Judge Gardner.
- At resentencing, Lee admitted the crime, his prison record was introduced, and arguments favored a 25-year minimum versus a longer term.
- Judge Gardner imposed 40 years with a 25-year minimum mandatory term, relying on pre-Graham factors and subsequent record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 40-year sentence is cruel and unusual punishment | Lee argues the term is excessive under precedent set by Walle. | State contends the sentence is consistent with statutory factors and Graham-era considerations. | No reversible error; sentence upheld. |
| Whether an updated PSI was required at resentencing | Lee contends an updated PSI was necessary for accurate sentencing. | State argues no such update was compelled and substantial information was already in record. | No error; no obligatory update needed. |
| Whether a 25-year minimum is authorized given the verdict | Lee asserts the verdict did not expressly support a 25-year minimum in his case. | State asserts discharge of a firearm with great bodily harm is proven and supports the minimum term. | Harmless error; the evidence supports the 25-year minimum despite verdict form ambiguity. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tripp, 642 So.2d 728 (Fla. 1994) (harmless error standard for enhancements without explicit findings)
- Thompson v. State, 862 So.2d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (interrogatory verdicts preferred for enhancements)
- Muldrow v. State, 842 So.2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (requirements for enhancement findings)
- State v. Iseley, 944 So.2d 227 (Fla. 2006) (interrogatories not essential for certain findings)
- Gentile v. State, 87 So.3d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (clear jury finding may be inferred; harmless error analysis)
- Knight v. State, 6 So.3d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (harmless error analysis in jury findings)
- Lindsay v. State, 1 So.3d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (harmless error analysis for findings)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (extends harmless error approach to trial findings)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing penalties are elements for jury submission)