Young v. Florida Commission on Offender Review
225 So. 3d 940
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1985 John Young pleaded guilty to capital sexual battery and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum mandatory term after admitting sexual misconduct with a child under ten.
- Young repeatedly challenged the legality of his life sentence in state courts and was unsuccessful.
- Young filed a petition (treated as habeas/certiorari by the Florida Supreme Court) arguing (1) his PPRD was set beyond his life expectancy, rendering the sentence invalid, and (2) abolition of the death penalty for nonfatal sexual battery (Buford) eliminated the capital felony so his life sentence is illegal.
- The Florida Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Putnam County Circuit Court and suggested construing it as a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion; the circuit court dismissed the filing, advising some claims belonged in other courts.
- The trial court dismissed Young’s PPRD claim as improperly filed and directed that it should be pursued by a mandamus petition in Leon County; it did not rule on the sentencing-illegality claim and instead dismissed without prejudice as to venue.
- On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed dismissal of the PPRD claim (venue/mandamus required) but reversed and remanded so the Putnam County trial court must address Young’s claim that his life sentence is illegal in light of Buford.
Issues
| Issue | Young's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of Commission setting PPRD beyond life expectancy | PPRD set beyond his life expectancy makes sentence invalid/indeterminate | PPRD review is not via a 3.800 motion; judicial review is by writs (mandamus/habeas) in proper venue | Dismissed without prejudice; Young must seek mandamus in Leon County to challenge PPRD |
| Legality of life sentence after Buford (abolition of capital penalty for nonfatal sexual battery) | Abolition of capital punishment for this offense reclassified or eliminated the capital felony, rendering his life sentence illegal | Sentencing is judicial function; challenges to sentence belong in sentencing court (Putnam County) not DOC venue filings | Reversed dismissal; remanded to Putnam County for the trial court to address whether his life sentence is illegal |
Key Cases Cited
- Buford v. State, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1981) (abolition of capital punishment for certain sexual battery offenses)
- Johnson v. Florida Parole Commission, 841 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (PPRD review via mandamus appropriate)
- Armour v. Florida Parole Commission, 963 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (distinguishes PPRD review by mandamus and habeas)
- Forbes v. Singletary, 684 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1996) (sentence challenges are a judicial function)
- Thomas v. State, 612 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (sentencing belongs to the trial court)
- Bornstein v. State, 893 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (proper venue for sentence-focused challenges is the sentencing court)
- Rusaw v. State, 451 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1984) (examples of cases addressing similar claims)
- Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (examples of related precedents)