BENITO SANTIAGO, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Santiago's conviction but reversed his sentence after the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Horsley v. State clarified that Chapter 2014-220 applies to juvenile sentences even when the underlying crime predated the statute's effective date. The court remanded for resentencing in conformance with Horsley and the new statutory provisions.
The court affirmed Santiago's conviction but reversed the term of years sentences and remanded for resentencing. The court determined that Chapter 2014-220 applies retroactively to juvenile sentences controlled by Miller v. Alabama, and therefore Santiago is entitled to resentencing in conformance with Horsley and the pertinent statutory provisions.
[1] A state supreme court decision clarifying juvenile sentencing issues in the aftermath of federal Supreme Court rulings on juvenile sentencing mandates resentencing in cas…
[2] A state statute governing juvenile sentencing may be applied to sentences controlled by federal Supreme Court precedent, even if the underlying crime was committed before…
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“In Horsley, the Supreme Court of Florida clarified that Chapter 2014-220 could and would be applied to juvenile sentences controlled by Miller — even in those cases in which the underlying crime was committed before the effective date of Chapter 2014-220.”
Establishes that the new sentencing statute applies retroactively to sentences imposed before its effective date, which is the core holding of this decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantiago was a juvenile offender convicted and sentenced to a term of years. The sentencing occurred in the context of post-Miller v. Alabama and Grah…
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 Juvenile Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motions to Stay Mandate, and for Remand
After review of the motions to stay mandate and for remand, we withdraw the opinion filed on February 11, 2015, on our own motion and substitute the following in its place. See Bayron v. State, 921 So.2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
As foreshadowed in our opinion issued February 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida has now definitively addressed the juvenile sentencing issues which arose in the aftermath of Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). In Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015), the Supreme Court rejected the sentencing arguments advanced by Santiago and by the State in these consolidated appeals.1
Horsley was issued after the parties in these cases filed and responded to motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc directed to our February 11, 2015, opinion. We initially denied those motions, but upon consideration of Santiago’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate, the State’s response, and Santiago’s reply, we grant the motion to stay issuance of the mandate and we remand this case to the trial court for resentencing in conformance with Horsley and the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.2
In doing so, we affirm Santiago’s conviction (as indicated in our opinion of Febru*805ary 11, 2015), but we reverse the term of years sentences. We reject the State’s argument that we should deny Santiago’s motion to stay the mandate and leave undisturbed his existing term of years sentences, allowing him to challenge the legality of the sentences in a later motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. In Horsley, the Supreme Court of Florida clarified that Chapter 2014-220 could and would be applied to juvenile sentences controlled by Miller — even in those cases in which the underlying crime was committed before the effective date3 of Chapter 2014-220.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in conformance with Horsley, 160 So.3d 393, and Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.
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)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Bayron v. State, 921 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)