ERIC RIVERA,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal by Eric Rivera, a juvenile offender, challenging a resentencing order. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, which denied Rivera's motion to reduce his sentence but amended it to reflect his eligibility for judicial review after fifteen years.
The appellate court held that the trial court's resentencing order was supported by competent, substantial evidence and found no basis for reversal. The amended sentence, including judicial review after fifteen years, was deemed appropriate.
[1] New sentencing statutes for juvenile offenders, when held to be retroactive, apply to cases previously affirmed on direct appeal.
[2] A trial court's resentencing order, based on findings supported by competent, substantial evidence, will be affirmed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Based on those findings and conclusions, all of which are supported by competent, substantial evidence, the trial court denied the amended motion to reduce Rivera’s sentence, but did amend the original sentence to reflect Rivera’s entitlement to a judicial review of his sentence after fifteen years, pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).”
This quote summarizes the trial court's decision on Rivera's motion and the resulting amended sentence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEric Rivera, convicted as a juvenile in 2007 for second-degree murder and burglary, sought resentencing following changes in law regarding juvenile of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactive Application Of Sentencing Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eric Rivera appeals the circuit court’s resentencing order in the aftermath of decisional and statutory changes applicable to certain juvenile offenders previously sentenced under provisions held violative of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Rivera was a juvenile in 2007, when the offenses were committed. Following a trial by jury, he was convicted and sentenced for second degree murder and burglary of an occupied dwelling with an assault or battery during the commission of the burglary. His conviction and original sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Rivera v. State, 226 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Following the Florida Legislature’s enactment of a new sentencing framework for juvenile offenders, sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014), and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision2 holding that the new statutes should be applied retroactively in eligible cases, Rivera filed a motion and amended motion seeking a resentencing hearing and the reduction of his sentence.3 An evidentiary hearing and resentencing under the new statutes were conducted in May 2018. The witnesses included Rivera and his family members. The victim’s family, present in the courtroom, provided affidavits which were read into the record.
The trial court entered a three-page order following the hearing, with ten separate findings pursuant to the requirements of section 921.1401(2) and an assessment of Rivera’s claim that his sentence was not proportional to those received by his co-defendants.
In light of Miller, Falcon, and Horsley, we treat this appeal of the resentencing order as one taken from a Based on those findings and conclusions, all of which are supported by competent, substantial evidence, the trial court denied the amended motion to reduce Rivera’s sentence, but did amend the original sentence to reflect Rivera’s entitlement to a judicial review of his sentence after fifteen years, pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).
We find no basis for reversal of the trial court’s order.
Affirmed.
proceeding seeking relief under sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015)
- Montesino v. State, 231 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Rivera v. State, 226 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)