Neely v. State
126 So. 3d 342
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Neely, a juvenile at the time, and co-defendants robbed a couple at gunpoint during the early morning hours of Jan. 30, 2005; the group then attempted to carjack the victims' car, resulting in the male victim's death and Perez's injury.
- Neely was arrested, interviewed, and given Miranda warnings; he provided a recorded statement admitting involvement in the armed robbery and carjacking.
- Neely waived Miranda rights in writing and verbally, and was found alert, coherent, and capable of understanding; the interview was videotaped.
- Neely moved to suppress the post-arrest statement, arguing improper waiver and failure to notify a guardian; the trial court denied the motion and admitted the statement.
- Neely was denied an “independent act” instruction; the jury returned guilty verdicts on first-degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery while wearing a mask, and armed carjacking, with four consecutive life sentences.
- The court remanded for resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama, due to mandatory life-without-parole considerations for juveniles; Miller allows individualized sentencing considerations, and Florida law requires reconsideration at a new sentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-arrest statement was properly admitted despite Miranda waiver concerns | Neely challenges voluntariness of waiver due to juvenile status | State contends waiver was knowing and voluntary given literacy and comprehension | Waiver and statement were voluntary; suppression not warranted |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying an independent act instruction | Neely argues separate acts by co-felons warrant independent act defense | State argues continuous common design; no independent act evidence | No error; evidence supports one continuous incident; no independent act instruction warranted |
| Whether life incarceration without parole for a juvenile is permissible post-Miller | Miller requires individualized consideration; life without parole may be unconstitutional for juveniles | Miller allows life without parole in homicide; framework unsettled in Florida | Convictions affirmed; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing to consider Miller’s guidelines for individualized sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1999) (voluntariness factors for juvenile confessions under totality of circumstances)
- McIntosh v. State, 37 So.3d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (juvenile confession voluntariness factors; notice considerations)
- Brancaccio v. State, 773 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Miranda and voluntariness considerations for juveniles)
- Frances v. State, 857 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (no constitutional requirement to notify parents before questioning juveniles)
- Doerr v. State, 383 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1980) (parental notification is a factor, not dispositive, in voluntariness)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing)
- Hernandez v. State, 117 So.3d 778 (Fla. 2013) (Miller provides guidance; Florida must allow other sentencing options through individualized consideration)
- Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (endorses Miller-inspired approach for resentencing juveniles; avoid premature broad rulings)