RANDY JERMAINE JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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 conviction for attempted first-degree murder but reversed the resentencing because the trial court's original sentence of life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum under the 10-20-Life statute was legal, contrary to the prosecutor's misinformation.
A sentence of life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum under Florida's 10-20-Life statute is legal for attempted first-degree murder with a firearm.
[1] A sentence of life imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum under Florida's 10-20-Life statute (section 775.087(2)(a)3.) is legal for attempted first-degree murder w…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm. The trial court originally sentenced him to life imprisonment with a 25-year ma…
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 10-20-Life Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from his conviction for attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, appellant claims that (1) the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument constituted fundamental error; and (2) the trial court erred in resentencing him to life imprisonment with a life mandatory minimum after the prosecutor misinformed the court that it could not legally sentence appellant to life in prison with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years under section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2011), also known as the 10-20-Life statute. We affirm as to appellant’s first claim without further comment. However, the state properly concedes error as to appellant’s second claim because appellant’s original sentence of life imprisonment with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum was legal under the 10-20-Life statute. See Wiley v. State, 125 So.3d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (rejecting claim that defendant’s sentence of life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for third-degree murder was illegal under the 10-20-Life statute). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court reimpose its original sentence of life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for resentencing.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrius Montgomery v. State, 230 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…First District relied, on cases that held that forty-five-year and fifty-year sentences imposed on juvenile offenders were constitutional because they did net amount to a “de facto” life sentence. Abrakata, 168 So. 3d at 252 (citing Austin v. State, 127 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Thomas v. State, 78 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)). The First District's reliance on these cases seems to contradict Henry, 175 So. 3d at 680, which held that the Eighth Amendment "will not tolerate [a juvenile offender’s] pris…
-
Edema Abrakata v. State, 168 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…Weekly D1347 (Fla. 1st DCA June 8, 2015) (on motion for clarification) (rejecting argument that juvenile’s 15-year sentence violates Graham because he will be in his late twenties or early thirties when he is released from prison); Austin v. State, 127 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming juvenile’s 45-year mandatory minimum term because it did not exceed his life expectancy); Thomas v. State, 78 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming juvenile’s 50-year sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum term…
-
Williams v. State, 197 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e, he will be eligible for gain time as determined by the Department of Corrections. See §§ 944.275; 775.087(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). Williams’ sentence is not the functional equivalent of a life sentence; it is constitutional, See Austin v. State, 127 So. 3d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (concluding that a forty-five year sentence with a forty-five year minimum mandatory is not a de facto life sentence); Thomas, 78 So. 3d at 646 (concluding that juvenile’s, concurrent fifty-year sentences were not the funct…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wiley v. State, 125 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)