Articles Posted in Florida Supreme Court

by
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of armed sexual battery, armed burglary, and armed robbery. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time he committed the offenses. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two life sentences and two concurrent twenty-five-year terms. After Graham v. Florida was decided, the trial court resentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of forty-five years. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal concluded that Defendant was not entitled to resentencing under Henry v. State, which applied the new sentence review statute to a Graham-eligible defendant, because Defendant’s forty-five-year term of imprisonment did not constitute a de facto life sentence in violation of Graham. However, the district court certified a question to the Supreme Court regarding the need for clarity on a category of Graham cases. The Supreme Court disapproved the court of appeal’s decision affirming Defendant’s resentencing, holding that a defendant whose initial sentence for a nonhomicide crime violated Graham and who was resentenced to concurrent forty-five year terms was entitled to new resentencing under the framework established in chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. View "Kelsey v. State" on Justia Law

by
In 2004, when Petitioner was sixteen years old, she and her boyfriend committed murder. Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder with a weapon, which was classified as a life felony. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to life without parole without indicating what findings of aggravating or mitigating circumstances warranted imposition of the life-without-parole sentence as opposed to a term-of-years sentence under the sentencing guidelines then in place. After the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, Petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief in the form of resentencing. The circuit court denied the motion. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that because Petitioner was sentenced under a discretionary sentencing scheme, Miller was inapplicable to Petitioner’s life-without-parole sentence. The Supreme Court quashed the Second District’s decision, holding that Miller applies to juvenile offenders whose sentences of life imprisonment without parole were imposed pursuant to a discretionary sentencing scheme when the sentencing court, in exercising that discretion, did not take into account the individualized sentencing considerations of a juvenile offender’s youth. View "Landrum v. State" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a juvenile placed on juvenile probation, pleaded guilty to failing to follow an order of probation by violating curfew and failing to obey household rules. The circuit court then placed Petitioner in secure detention. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his sentence was illegal. The second district court of appeal denied Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus and certified conflict with the fifth district court of appeal's decision in M.P. v. State. The Supreme Court (1) approved the decision of the second district court of appeal denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and (2) disapproved the decision of the fifth district court of appeal in M.P. to the extent it was inconsistent with this opinion. View "J.M. v. Gargett" on Justia Law

by
The State charged Defendant, who at the time was detained at a juvenile detention center, with one count of battery by detainee in violation of Fla. Stat. 784.03 and 784.082. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, contending that a juvenile could not be lawfully charged with battery by detainee while detained in a juvenile detention facility. The trial court dismissed the charge based on its belief that it was bound to follow the first district court of appeal's decision in T.C. v. State, which held that the battery by detainee offense was inapplicable to juveniles held in juvenile facilities. The fourth district court of appeals reversed, noting that in the past it and the fifth district had affirmed a trial court order adjudicating a juvenile guilty of battery upon a fellow detainee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a juvenile detention center qualifies as a "detention facility" for purposes of section 784.082, and thereby disapproving the first district's decision in T.C. View "Hopkins v. State" on Justia Law

by
The State filed a petition for delinquency against Minor, alleging that Minor had violated Fla. Stat. Ann. 810.097(2) by trespassing on the grounds of a middle school after having been warned by the principal or designee. The two individuals who gave warnings to Minor were school police officers. The trial court denied Minor's motion and adjudged Minor delinquent. The district court affirmed. Minor appealed, contending (1) the State failed to prove that either of the warning officers was a designee of the school's principal; and (2) because the designee status of the warning individual is an element of the trespass offense under section 810.097(2), the State had failed to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court and remanded the case, holding (1) the record did not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that the officers were designees of the school's principal for purposes of section 810.097(2); and (2) therefore, the district court erred in affirming the trial court's adjudication of Minor's delinquency because an essential element of the offense was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. View "J.R. v. State" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a juvenile, was convicted for trespassing upon the grounds of a school facility in violation of section 810.097(2), Florida Statutes. At issue was whether the prosecution must prove the identity of the individual who warned defendant to leave the grounds of the school, and that individual's authority to restrict access to the property, as essential elements of the trespass offense. The court held that the individual's identity and authority were essential elements of the offense and quashed the decision of the Third District. The court also held that, because in this case the state failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the petitioner was warned to leave by the school's principal or a designee of the principal, petitioner's conviction must be vacated. View "D.J. v. State" on Justia Law