Ortiz v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11861
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Petitioner Anthony Ortiz (juvenile at time of alleged offense) filed emergency petition for writ of prohibition seeking dismissal of first-degree murder indictment.
- Ortiz argued no lawful sentence currently exists for juvenile first-degree murder because Florida statutes authorize only death and mandatory life without parole, both invalid for juveniles under Roper and Miller.
- Ortiz claimed due process/notice defect: indictment fails to inform him of possible penalties upon plea or conviction.
- Trial court denied Ortiz’s motions to dismiss; he sought immediate prohibition relief from this Court.
- The Court relied on Washington v. State, which affirmed conviction but vacated mandatory life and remanded for resentencing under Miller, recognizing a juvenile mitigation inquiry and leaving life-without-parole as a possible ceiling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition is appropriate to dismiss indictment because no lawful juvenile sentence exists | Ortiz: Death and mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for juveniles; thus indictment gives no notice of lawful punishment and due process requires dismissal | State: Trial court has jurisdiction; sentencing questions are for trial court to decide; Washington provides a viable sentencing framework | Denied. Prohibition is not proper; trial court has jurisdiction and should address sentencing legality first |
| Whether indictment fails to provide constitutionally adequate notice of potential penalties | Ortiz: Indictment lacks notice because statutory penalties (death, mandatory LWOP) are unconstitutional for juveniles | State: Washington gives actual notice that juvenile may face life without parole after a mitigation inquiry; plea bargaining and lesser-offense options remain | Denied. Washington supplies sufficient notice (life without parole after juvenile mitigation inquiry is a recognized ceiling) |
| Whether Miller eliminated all sentencing options for juvenile first-degree murder | Ortiz: Miller and Roper eliminate the only statutory penalties, leaving no authorized sentence | State: Miller invalidates mandatory LWOP but does not categorically bar LWOP; Washington and related authority permit LWOP following individualized mitigation review | Court: Miller does not categorically bar LWOP; sentencing options (including LWOP after mitigation, parole-eligible after 25 years via statutory revival argument, or lengthy term of years) remain |
| Whether prohibition can be used to preempt trial courts from determining sentencing options | Ortiz: Extraordinary relief warranted because of uncertainty about lawful sentences | State: Prohibition is narrow and cannot divest lower court of authority to hear and decide sentencing issues | Court: Prohibition unavailable for this purpose; trial judges must consider sentencing legality in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (invalidating death penalty for juvenile offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (invalidating mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (holding life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
- Washington v. State, 103 So.3d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for resentencing under Miller; recognizing juvenile mitigation inquiry and LWOP as potential ceiling)
- English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (scope of prohibition writ explained)
- Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992) (prohibition cannot divest lower tribunal of jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction)