Leroy Mackey v. State
162 So. 3d 48
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Leroy Mackey was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for an offense committed when he was a juvenile.
- Appellant moved for a new trial; the trial court denied the motion and found no false testimony had been presented.
- Appellant argued his mandatory life-without-parole sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama (2012).
- The State conceded the sentence is unconstitutional under Miller but urged that statutory revival principles allow imposition of life with parole eligibility after 25 years.
- The Fourth District followed its precedent requiring resentencing proceedings where the trial court must consider the Miller factors — the “distinctive attributes of youth” — before reimposing life without parole.
- The court affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, accepted the State’s concession on Miller, reversed the sentence, and remanded for resentencing consistent with Miller (but did not preclude reimposition of life without parole after individualized consideration).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile violates Eighth Amendment | Miller renders such mandatory sentences unconstitutional; sentence should be vacated | Concedes Miller error but urges automatic replacement by life with parole eligibility after 25 years via statutory revival | Court agreed sentence unconstitutional under Miller; remanded for resentencing with individualized Miller consideration |
| Remedy for Miller error | Remand for individualized resentencing considering youth factors; possible lesser term | Resentencing unnecessary if statutory revival substitutes life with parole after 25 years | Court rejected automatic statutory-substitute approach and ordered further sentencing proceedings to consider Miller factors |
| Whether false testimony required reversal of conviction | Appellant argued State presented false testimony warranting a new trial | State maintained testimony was not false | Court found no false testimony; affirmed conviction |
| Whether trial court may reimpose life without parole after Miller sentencing | Remand should prevent reimposition of life without parole | Trial court could reimpose life without parole after considering youth factors | Court held trial court may reimpose life without parole only after expressly considering Miller’s distinctive- youth attributes and penological justifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Daugherty v. State, 96 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trial court must consider Miller factors on resentencing; may reimpose life without parole after individualized review)
- Horsley v. State, 121 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (conceded Miller error; discussed statutory-revival remedy)
- Juarez v. State, 138 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (applies Daugherty approach to Miller resentencing)
- Thomas v. State, 135 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (noting trial court’s authority to impose a substantial discretionary term after Miller-compliant resentencing)