DOMINIC MAIZE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2015-05-06
No. 2D13-2761
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
164 So. 3d 66 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2015)

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.

Synopsis

Dominic Maize, sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without parole for first-degree murder committed at age sixteen, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The court reverses based on the Florida Supreme Court's holding that Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to juvenile offenders, requiring resentencing under Florida's new juvenile sentencing legislation.


Holding

Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. The proper remedy is to apply Florida's 2014 juvenile sentencing legislation (codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes) and conduct a resentencing proceeding.


Headnotes

[1] The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.

[2] New legislation enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions on juvenile sentencing must be applied to juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under tho…

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“Miller v. Alabama... did not apply retroactively”

The previous basis for denying the motion, which the appellate court rejects based on intervening Florida Supreme Court decisions

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Dominic Maize was sixteen years old when he committed first-degree murder and received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibili…

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.


Opinion of the Court
CASANUEVA, Judge.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Dominic Maize appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Maize’s motion alleged that he received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a first-degree murder that he committed when he was sixteen years old. The motion was denied based on Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), and Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), which held that Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. — , 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), did not apply retroactively. The Florida Supreme Court has recently held that the Miller decision applies retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954 (Fla.2015). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order summarily denying the claim.

We note that the Florida Supreme Court has further held in Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015), that the proper remedy in cases involving juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller is to apply chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. The court concluded that “applying chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, to all juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller is the remedy most faithful to the Eighth Amendment principles established by the United States Supreme Court, to *67the intent of the Florida Legislature, and to the doctrine of separation of powers.” Id. at S160. The relevant provisions of chapter 2014-220 have been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Maize’s motion and remand for a resentencing proceeding consistent with this new juvenile sentencing legislation. See Horsley, 160 So.3d 393; Falcon, 162 So.3d 954.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw