HARRY LEE DAVIS, JR., 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.
Harry Lee Davis, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion to challenge two mandatory life sentences imposed when he was seventeen years old for first-degree murder. The court reverses based on recent Florida Supreme Court decisions holding that Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to juvenile offenders and that resentencing under new juvenile sentencing legislation is the appropriate remedy.
Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively to all juvenile offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided. The proper remedy for juvenile offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller is resentencing under Florida's new juvenile sentencing legislation (chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402).
[1] New substantive rules of constitutional law must be given retroactive effect in state collateral review proceedings.
[2] A rule is substantive if it prohibits a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.
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“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.”
Establishes that Miller v. Alabama has retroactive application to Davis's case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis received two mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for two counts of first-degree murder committed when he was…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Harry Lee Davis, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Davis’s motion alleged that he received two mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for two counts of first-degree murder that he committed when he was seventeen 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 the 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. Davis’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
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015)
- Drewery Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Gonzalez v. State, 101 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)