RADRRICK LAVRRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing.
Lavrrick, a minor at the time of his offenses, was sentenced to life in prison for violating probation by committing new crimes. The evidence supporte…
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 Graham V. Florida cases and more on FLexlaw
When he was sixteen years of age in 2005, Lavrrick pled guilty and was sentenced to five years probation for robbery with a deadly weapon and armed carjacking. This appeal is from convictions and concurrent, statutorily authorized sentences to life in prison, see § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2005), imposed for those offenses upon the finding that he had violated the probation on May 30, 2007, by committing another armed robbery and associated crimes.
Notwithstanding the earnest and able arguments of his counsel to the contrary, we find the evidence at the probation hearing amply supportive of the determination that he had committed the subsequent crimes. Because no other error occurred, the convictions are therefore affirmed.
In Graham v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), however, the United States Supreme Court, in a Florida case, held that unqualified life sentences for non-homicides1 categorically constituted cruel and unusual punishment when imposed upon persons who were minors when they committed the crimes. We therefore vacate the sentences below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the dictates of Graham.
Affirmed in part, vacated, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guzman v. State, 68 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…when he was fourteen years old. Graham fashioned a bright line rule prohibiting the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a person who commits an offense, other than a homicide, while under the age of eighteen. See also Lavrrick v. State, 45 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing a life sentence imposed on an eighteen-year-old defendant for violating probation imposed for non-homicide offenses committed while he was sixteen). Any deviation from that rule casts doubt on the very underpinnings of…
-
Rioux v. State, 48 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…nstitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” Therefore, we vacate Mr. Rioux’s sentences and remand for resen-tencing in accordance with Graham. See also Lavrrick v. State, 45 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Garland v. State, 48 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
-
State v. Tarrence L. Smith, 107 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…pinion, quashed the defendant’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing pursuant to Graham. 70 So. 3d at 609. We reach a conclusion consistent with Garland. Finally, appellee notes the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Lavrrick v. State, 45 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), which relied upon Graham to reverse a life sentence without parole imposed on an eighteen-year-old defendant for violating probation imposed for nonhomicide offenses committed while he was sixteen. We conclude Guzman, Garland, an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence