IRVIN LANDY, 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.
Irvin Landy, sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years for first-degree murder committed as a juvenile, appealed the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under Miller v. Alabama. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing after the Florida Supreme Court clarified that juveniles sentenced to life with the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing consideration.
Yes. The court held that juveniles sentenced to life with the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, because such sentences do not provide the individualized consideration of juvenile status required by Miller and are virtually indistinguishable from sentences of life without parole.
[1] A juvenile sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder is entitled to resentencing in conformance with Florida's chapter 2014-220, Laws of Fl…
[2] Sentences imposed on juveniles that are virtually indistinguishable from life without parole are unconstitutional under Miller 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“Florida's existing parole system, as set forth by statute, does not provide for individualized consideration of Atwell's juvenile status at the time of the murder, as required by Miller, and that his sentence, which is virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole, is therefore unconstitutional.”
Establishes that life sentences with parole eligibility for juveniles violate Miller because they lack individualized consideration and are functionally equivalent to life without parole.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1992, Landy, who was seventeen years old at the time of the offense, was found guilty of first-degree murder by a jury and sentenced to life impris…
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 To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Irvin Landy appeals from the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for resentencing.
In 1992 a jury found Mr. Landy guilty of first-degree murder. At the time of the offense, Mr. Landy was seventeen years old. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years.
In his motion to correct illegal sentence, Mr. Landy sought relief under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). He claimed that because he was a juvenile when the offense was committed, he was entitled to a resen-tencing hearing pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. See Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393, 405-06 (Fla.2015) (holding that the remedy for an unconstitutional sentence under Miller is resen-tencing under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida). The postconviction court denied Mr. Landy’s motion based upon then-exist*802ing case law. See, e.g., McPherson v. State, 138 So.3d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (stating that Miller was inapplicable because McPherson was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after twenty-five years); Atwell v. State, 128 So.3d 167, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that Miller was inapplicable to a life sentence with parole eligibility after twenty-five years).
While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District’s Atwell decision. See Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040, 1041 (Fla.2016). The court concluded that “Florida’s existing parole system, as set forth by statute, does not provide for individualized consideration of Atwell’s juvenile status at the time of the murder, as required by Miller, and that his sentence, which is virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole, is therefore unconstitutional.” Id. at 1041. The court held that juveniles sentenced to life with the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Id. at 1050 (citing Horsley, 160 So.3d at 399). The supreme court also quashed this court’s decision in McPherson. See McPherson v. State, No. SC14-1369, 2016 WL 6357975 (Fla. Oct. 28, 2016) (remanding for resentencing in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Landos motion and remand for resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, which was codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 208 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…2d 407 (2012), for a juvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. Id.; see also Hixon v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2594, 205 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Landy v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2555, 205 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 16, 2016); Michel v. State, 204 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). On remand, Mr. Wells is entitled to resentenc-ing pursuant to sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA, WALLACE…
-
McDonald v. State, 207 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…2016). The court held that juveniles sentenced to life with the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Id. at 1050 (citing Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 399); see Landy v. State, 2D15-4827, 205 So. 3d 801, 2016 WL 6776120 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 16, 2016). The supreme court has now also quashed this court’s decision in McPherson.2 See McPherson v. State, 2016 WL 6357975 (Fla. Oct. 28, 2016) (citing Atwell and remanding for resentencing in conformance with…
-
Edwards v. State, 210 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ell, this court recently held that a juvenile who was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years was entitled to be resentenced under sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. See Landy v. State, 205 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Edwards’ motion and remand for re-sentencing in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- Atwell v. State, 128 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Ira Demetrius McPHERSON v. State, 138 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)