MALIK JIMER WILLIAMS, 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.
Malik Jimer Williams, convicted as a juvenile of first-degree murder and attempted murder, appealed his sentences arguing entitlement to resentencing under Florida's chapter 2014-220. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and sentences, holding that neither his thirty-five-year murder sentence nor his twenty-five-year attempted murder sentence violated constitutional protections for juvenile offenders under Miller v. Alabama or Graham v. Florida.
Williams is not entitled to resentencing because neither of his sentences is unconstitutional under the applicable precedents. His thirty-five-year murder sentence does not violate Miller v. Alabama, which only prohibits mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. His twenty-five-year attempted murder sentence does not violate Graham v. Florida because it is not a de facto life sentence and does not deprive him of a meaningful opportunity for release during his lifetime.
[1] A juvenile homicide offender is entitled to resentencing under a new law if their sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. …
[2] A juvenile non-homicide offender is entitled to resentencing under a new law if their sentence is unconstitutional under Graham v. …
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“Miller prohibits mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders.”
Establishes the constitutional limitation that does not apply to Williams' thirty-five-year determinate sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMalik Jimer Williams was seventeen years old when he committed first-degree murder and attempted murder. The trial court sentenced him to thirty-five …
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 De Facto Life Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
Appellant’s motion to stay mandate and motion for reconsideration is denied. On its own motion, this court withdraws the prior per curiam affirmance dated March 16, 2016, and substitutes the following *1021opinion. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.
Malik Jimer Williams appeals from his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and attempted murder. Williams was seventeen years old when he committed the offenses. He raises two issues in this appeal, neither of which require reversal. However, we write to explain why we have affirmed his sentences.
The trial court sentenced Williams to thirty-five years in prison, with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum term, for the first-degree murder. He also received a sentence of twenty-five years in prison, with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum term, followed by ten years of probation for the attempted murder. Williams argues he is entitled to be resentenced under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, even though his offenses were committed before the effective date of the new law. We disagree. In Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393, 395 (Fla.2015), the supreme court held that all juvenile homicide offenders whose sentences are unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), are entitled to be sentenced under chapter 2014-220. Miller prohibits mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. 132 S.Ct. at 2469. Williams received a sentence of thirty-five years on his conviction for first-degree murder, therefore, his sentence is not unconstitutional under Miller, and he is not entitled to be resentenced under the new law.
In Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015), the court held that Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which prohibits life-without-parole sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders, applies to lengthy term-of-years sentences that do not provide juvenile nonhomicide offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release during their lifetimes. A juvenile nonhomicide offender whose sentence is not unconstitutional under Graham is not entitled to resentencing under the new law. See Williams v. State, 197 So.3d 569, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In this case, Williams was sentenced to twenty-five years, with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum, on his conviction for attempted murder. This sentence is not a de facto life sentence, and therefore is not unconstitutional under Graham. See id. (holding that a sentence of fifty years with a twenty-year mandatory minimum was not a de facto life sentence and did not violate Graham).
Accordingly, we affirm Williams’ convictions and sentences.
LaROSE and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State of Fla. – Revised on Rehearing, 261 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2019)…QUINCE, J. Malik Jimer Williams seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Williams v. State, 203 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of this Court on questions of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the following reasons, we approve in part and quash in part…
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)
- Leighdon Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015)
- Williams v. State, 197 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)