ALFRED MCDONALD, 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.
Alfred McDonald, sentenced to life with possibility of parole for first-degree murder committed at age 16, appeals the denial of his motions for resentencing under Florida criminal procedure rules. The court reverses and remands for resentencing, holding that Miller v. Alabama's protections against mandatory life sentences for juveniles extend to life-with-parole sentences under Florida law.
The court affirmed the denial of ground two of McDonald's rule 3.800(a) motion but reversed the denial of ground one of his rule 3.800(a) motion and his rule 3.850(b)(2) motion, holding that juveniles sentenced to life with possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida (codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402).
[1] A life sentence imposed on a juvenile offender is unconstitutional if it does not provide for individualized consideration of the offender's juvenile status at the time o…
[2] Juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with Florida Statutes sections 775.082, 921.1401, and…
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“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.”
The Florida Supreme Court's reasoning in Atwell explaining why life-with-parole sentences for juveniles violate Miller v. Alabama
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDonald committed first-degree murder when he was sixteen years old and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive fift…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. The opinion dated May 13, 2016, is hereby -withdrawn and the attached opinion is substituted therefor. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.
MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL, CLERK
Alfred McDonald appeals the order denying his motions filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850(b)(2). We affirm the denial of ground two of McDonald’s rule 3.800(a) motion, but we reverse the denial of ground one and the denial of his rule 3.850(b)(2) motion, in which he asked that ground one of his rule 3.800(a) motion be converted to a claim under rule 3.850(b)(2).
McDonald argued that his sentence of life with the possibility of parole for a first-degree murder he committed when he was sixteen years of age was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).1 He contended that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. See Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015) (holding that the remedy for a sentence that is unconstitutional under Miller is re-sentencing under chapter 2014-220).
The postconviction court denied McDonald’s motion based on then-existing case law holding that Miller did not apply to life sentences with the possibility of parole. See McPherson v. State, 138 So.3d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Atwell v. State, 128 So.3d 167, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). However, the supreme court has now reversed Atwell, concluding “that *377Florida’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.” Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 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 sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes).
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s denial of McDonald’s rule 3.850(b)(2) motion and ground one of his rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for resen-tencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which was codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
KHOUZAM, CRENSHAW, and LUCAS, 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)
- 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)
- Landy v. State, 205 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)