REGINALD KENDRICK, 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.
Kendrick appeals a postconviction court's denial of his motion challenging his juvenile life sentence for second-degree murder as unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The appellate court affirms the denial but certifies a question of great public importance regarding whether Miller's procedures apply to juveniles sentenced to life for second-degree murder before Florida's 2014 legislative changes.
The court affirmed the postconviction court's denial, holding that a nonmandatory life sentence for second-degree murder is not unconstitutional under Miller because the sentence is not mandatory; however, the court certified the issue for review by the Florida Supreme Court given the sentencing incongruity created by recent legislation.
[1] A life sentence for a juvenile convicted of second-degree murder is not unconstitutional under Miller v. …
[2] A juvenile convicted of first-degree murder is entitled to eventual sentence review, while a juvenile convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life before recen…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles who commit homicide”
Establishes the constitutional principle from Miller v. Alabama that Kendrick invoked
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKendrick was a juvenile when he committed second-degree murder and received a life sentence. He filed a postconviction motion arguing his sentence vio…
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 Individualized Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Reginald Kendrick appeals the order denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm but certify a question of great public importance.
In his motion, Mr. Kendrick argued that because he was a juvenile at the time he committed second-degree murder, his life sentence for the offense was illegal under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2475 (2012) (holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles who commit homicide). The postcon-viction court correctly denied Mr. Kendrick’s motion based on this court’s opinion in Starks v. State, 128 So.3d 91, 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding in a postconviction proceeding that because second-degree *779murder with a firearm is a life felony punishable by life or by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, juvenile’s life sentence was not unconstitutional under Miller), disapproved of on other grounds, Lawton v. State, — So.3d — (Fla.2015).
In Landrum v. State, 163 So.3d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), this court also found that a postconviction court correctly cited Starks when it denied a motion to correct illegal sentence filed by a defendant convicted of committing second-degree murder when she was a juvenile. Athough we affirmed the postconviction court’s order, we recognized the sentencing incongruity that now exists in this district since the legislature enacted chapter 2014-220, § 3, at 2873, Laws of Florida, and the Florida Supreme Court decided Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015):
a,juvenile convicted of first-degree murder enjoys the right to eventual review of his or her sentence without regard to the date of his or her offense while a juvenile convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life before' the effective date of the new legislation does not. This circumstance also raises the question whether those juveniles convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment before July 1, 2014, are entitled to the individualized sentencing hearing called for in Miller.
Landrum, 163 So.3d 1261. As we did in Landrum, we answer this question in the negative based on our decision in Starks. Aso as we did in Landrum, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
BECAUSE THERE IS NO PAROLE FROM A LIFE SENTENCE' IN FLORIDA, DOES MILLER V. ALABAMA, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTIONS 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, FLORIDA STATUTES (2014), TO JUVENILES CONVICTED OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER AND SENTENCED TO A NONMANDATORY SENTENCE OF LIFE IN PRISON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHAPTER 2014-220, LAWS OF FLORIDA?
Affirmed; question certified.
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016)…quash the Second District’s decision and remand this case for resentencing in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes, and disapprove Lightsey v. State, 182 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), Kendrick, v. State, 171 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), Lindsey v. State, 168 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), Lane v. State, 151 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), Mason v. State, 134 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Starks v. State, 128 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), to the extent that…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)
- Starks v. State, 128 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 163 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)