Neely v. State
207 So. 3d 357
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Cordero Neely, a juvenile, was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for first‑degree murder and also received a life sentence for a non‑homicide offense.
- Neely appealed his life sentences arguing they were impermissible under the evolving constitutional and statutory juvenile‑sentencing framework.
- The court framed the appeal in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting mandatory life without parole for juveniles and Florida Supreme Court decisions applying those rulings retroactively.
- Florida statutory provisions governing juvenile resentencing and review (sections 775.082 and 921.1402) provide for individualized sentencing and judicial review mechanisms for juvenile offenders.
- The court found Neely’s sentences effectively imposed life without a meaningful opportunity for release and lacked the individualized consideration required for juvenile offenders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a life sentence without meaningful opportunity for release is permissible for a juvenile | Neely: life without parole violates Eighth Amendment and controlling juvenile‑sentencing law; requires resentencing under new statutory scheme | State: trial sentences were lawful as imposed | Court: reversed — life for juvenile impermissible without meaningful opportunity for release; remand for resentencing under statutory scheme |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery require individualized sentencing for juveniles | Neely: Miller/Montgomery prohibit mandatory life without parole and demand individualized consideration | State: argued prior scheme sufficed or did not require full relitigation in all cases | Court: Miller/Montgomery (as applied by Florida cases) require individualized sentencing and remedies through resentencing |
| Applicability of Florida Supreme Court remedial framework (Falcon/Landrum/Atwell) | Neely: entitled to resentencing under sections 775.082 and 921.1402 consistent with Florida precedent | State: likely argued existing sentences complied or were distinguishable | Court: followed Falcon/Landrum/Atwell — resentencing required with statutory review opportunities |
| Whether parole provisions decades beyond natural life satisfy Miller's mandate | Neely: presumptive parole dates far beyond natural lifespan are functionally life without parole | State: parole provisions create a possibility of release, so constitutional concerns are avoided | Court: held that parole dates set decades beyond natural lifespan are inconsistent with Miller/Montgomery; require meaningful opportunity for release |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (prohibits mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (declares Miller retroactive and limits life without parole to rare irreparably corrupt juveniles)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015) (applies Miller retroactively and prescribes resentencing under Florida statutes)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015) (requires individualized consideration and judicial review mechanisms for juvenile offenders)
- Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016) (holds life without parole unconstitutional when pre‑Miller scheme failed to consider youth; mandates resentencing)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) (rejects sentences that effectively operate as mandatory life without parole and requires individualized consideration)