EARL SIMMONS
v.
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.
Earl Simmons appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his consecutive life sentences constituted unconstitutional indefinite imprisonment under the Florida Constitution. The court affirmed the denial, holding that life sentences are constitutionally definite and do not violate the prohibition on indefinite imprisonment.
A life sentence is not impermissibly indefinite imprisonment under the Florida Constitution. The Legislature's prescription of life imprisonment clearly intends that a defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life, and the term 'life' is sufficiently definite to be understood and applied.
[1] A life sentence is not an unconstitutional "indefinite imprisonment" under the Florida Constitution.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that a life sentence constitutes impermissible indefinite imprisonment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“But a life sentence is not impermissible "indefinite imprisonment" under the Florida Constitution.”
States the core holding that life sentences do not violate the constitutional prohibition on indefinite imprisonment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons was convicted of two counts of manslaughter with a weapon and mask, four counts of battery, and one count of felony possession of a firearm. H…
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 Indefinite Imprisonment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0655
Lower Tribunal No. F98-35513
Earl Simmons,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.
Earl Simmons, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GORDO, BOKOR, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Earl Simmons appeals an order denying a motion to correct illegal sentence. After being convicted of two counts of manslaughter with a weapon and mask, four counts of battery, and one count felony possession of a firearm, he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, five years, and five years minimum mandatory, respectively. He asserts that this amounted to an unconstitutional “indefinite imprisonment.”
But a life sentence is not impermissible “indefinite imprisonment” under the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const. Indeed, this argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Florida Supreme Court and our Court. See Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“[A]ny sentence, even one of a short duration, can potentially exceed a defendant's life span. The fact that the judicial system has no way of knowing how long the defendant will live and therefore cannot know how long the defendant will be incarcerated does not render a life sentence unconstitutionally indefinite. It is abundantly clear that the Legislature, by prescribing a sentence of life imprisonment, intends that the defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life. The term 'life' is sufficiently definite so that it can be understood and applied.") (internal citations omitted); Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 1978) (“We reject the notion that an individual's life expectancy should be used, or was intended by the Legislature to be used, to mark the longest term which a particular defendant should serve. Any sentence, no matter how short, may eventually extend beyond the life of a prisoner.”); Alvarez v. State, No. 3D25- 0533, 2025 WL 1509636, at*1 (Fla. 3d DCA May 28, 2025); Jimenez-Solano v. State, No. 3D25-374, 2025 WL 1509570, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA May 28, 2025); Lemon v. State, No. 3D25-0535, 2025 WL 1450561, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA May 21, 2025); Padgett v. State, No. 3D25-0349, 2025 WL 1172840, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 23, 2025); Holmes v. State, 245 So. 3d 857, 858 (Fla. 3DCA (2018); Johnson v. Crosby, 897 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Lopez v. State, 895 So. 2d 1282, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Enriquez v. State, 885 So. 2d 892, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2005)
- Enriquez v. State, 885 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Williams v. State, 897 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Holmes v. State, 245 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Gardiner, Inc. v. Alan Postman for Miami River Dev., LLC., 895 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)