SCOTT BRIAN WEIAND, 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.
Scott Weiand appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his life sentences imposed when he was 17 years old. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed his life sentences on non-homicide offenses (kidnapping and robbery), holding that Graham v. Florida's prohibition on life-without-parole sentences for juveniles applies regardless of whether the juvenile also committed a homicide.
The court held that Graham's bright-line rule prohibiting life-without-parole sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders applies regardless of whether the juvenile also committed a homicide. Accordingly, Weiand's life sentences on the kidnapping and robbery convictions are illegal, and the case must be remanded for re-sentencing on those offenses.
[1] A juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for a non-homicide offense, regardless of whether the offender also committed a homicide offen…
[2] Sentences of life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses imposed on juvenile offenders violate the Eighth Amendment.
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“a defendant who was under eighteen when his non-homicide offense was committed cannot be sentenced to life without parole”
Establishes the bright-line rule from Graham that applies to all juvenile non-homicide offenders without exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, Weiand pled guilty at age 17 to crimes in five separate cases. He was sentenced to life in prison with possibility of parole after 25 years f…
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 Life Without Parole For Juveniles cases and more on FLexlaw
Scott Brian Weiand (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rules 3.850 and 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Determining that the defendant’s sentences of life imprisonment without parole on his kidnapping and robbery convictions are illegal, we reverse the sentences.
In 1988, the defendant pled guilty, in five separate cases, to crimes he commit*435ted when he was 17-years old. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, on the homicide conviction, the defendant was sentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole after serving a mandatory minimum of 25 years, and on the kidnapping and robbery convictions he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life in prison to be served consecutive to the homicide sentence.1
Fourteen years later, in 2012, the defendant filed a motion seeking post-conviction relief alleging five claims for relief. The trial court entered an order denying the motion without conducting a hearing thereon. This appeal followed.
The defendant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of all five of his claims for relief. We conclude that only one of the challenges possesses merit.
In that regard, the defendant challenges the trial court’s ruling rejecting his claim that his life sentences on his non-homicide convictions are illegal under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010).2 The trial court held that, “[u]nder the express language of Graham, because defendant was sentenced on a homicide at the same time that he was sentenced to life in prison for non-homicide offenses, his sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Pursuant to Graham, when at least one offense is a homicide offense, there is no Eighth Amendment prohibition to sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment for non-homicide offense at the same time.” This reasoning is supported by Lawton v. State, 109 So.3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) and Starks v. State, 128 So.3d 91, 2013 WL 5225311 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 18, 2013).
However, in Johnson v. State, — So.3d -, 2013 WL 1809685, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D953 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 30, 2013), the First District concluded that there was no exception in Graham for juvenile offenders who commit both homicide and non-homicide offenses. Accord Jackson v. State, — So.3d -, 2013 WL 3013582, 38 Fla. L. Weekly 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA June 18, 2013). We agree with the reasoning in Johnson that, in Graham, the Supreme Court created a bright-line rule, holding that a defendant who was under eighteen when his non-homicide offense was committed cannot be sentenced to life without parole.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of this claim for relief, and remand for re-sentencing on the non-homicide offenses. In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…tence, but then the sixty-year sentence in Guzman, that Justice Pariente clearly inferred would be an unconstitutional sentence, would arguably not be a de facto life sentence if Guzman’s nine years of gain time is considered. . In Weiand v. State, 129 So. 3d 434, 434-35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), we reversed life sentences imposed on a juvenile nonhomicide offender in 1988 and remanded for resentenc-ing, impliedly concluding that Graham applied retroactively; . To be clear, we are not holding or suggesting that…
-
Torrence Lawton v. State, 181 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2015)…-, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D953 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 30, 2013) (same); Jackson v. State, — So. 3d -, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1334, 2013 WL 3013582 (Fla. 1st DCA June 18, 2013) (same); Lane v. State, 151 So. 3d 20, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (same); Weiand v. State, 129 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (same); with Lawton, 109 So. 3d at 828 (recognizing a homicide-case exception to Graham); Washington v. State, 110 So. 3d 1, 2-3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same); Starks v. State, 128 So. 3d 91, 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same); Orange…
-
Javarris Lane v. State, 151 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tion when the offender has also been convicted and sentenced for a homicide in the same proceeding, as did in fact occur in the present case” and reversing multiple life sentences imposed for non-homicide crimes pursuant to Graham); Weiand v. State, 129 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (reversing concurrent terms of life in prison for kidnapping and robbery convictions, to begin after a sentence of life in prison for a homicide conviction).5 But see Orange v. State, 149 So. 3d 74, 84, at *10 (Fla. 4th DCA…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Dolan v. State, 618 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Starks v. State, 128 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Manuel v. State, 48 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Torrence Lawton v. State, 109 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Blanchard ST. VAL v. State, 107 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)