RICARDO MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Miller, a juvenile offender sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder in 1973, appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing under Florida's new juvenile sentencing statutes, holding that all juveniles are entitled to judicial review and resentencing regardless of when they were sentenced.
All juveniles are entitled to judicial review and resentencing in accordance with the new sentencing statutes, including those sentenced before July 1, 2014. The trial court's denial of Miller's resentencing motion was reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing under the applicable statutes.
[1] Juveniles convicted of first-degree murder are entitled to judicial review and resentencing in accordance with new statutory provisions.
[2] A juvenile offender is defined as a person sentenced to imprisonment for an offense committed before reaching 18 years of age.
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“all juveniles are entitled to judicial review and resentencing in accordance with the new statutes”
Establishes the core holding that juvenile offenders, regardless of sentencing date, have a right to resentencing under the new Florida juvenile sentencing laws
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial and sentenced to life in prison in 1973. Miller was a juvenile at the time he commi…
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 Retroactive Application Of Sentencing Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION
This cause is before us on the State of Florida’s Motion for Rehearing and/or Clarification. We deny the motion for rehearing, but withdraw our December 21, 2016 opinion and substitute this opinion in its place.
Miller appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2015 order denying his 3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. We reverse and remand.
Miller was found guilty of first-degree murder following a jury trial and in 1973 was sentenced to life in prison. Miller claims he should be resentenced because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the crime. Based on our reading of the applicable sentencing statutes and our recent decision in Neely v. State, No. 3D14-1052, 207 So.3d 357, 2016 WL 6992563 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2016), all juveniles are entitled to judicial review and resen-tencing in accordance with the new statutes. 1 Miller is thus entitled to judicial *835review and resentencing.2
We therefore reverse Miller’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under section 775.082(l)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018)…Mar. 15, 2017) ("Notwithstanding the fact that he will be reevaluated for the possibility of parole in 2022, we conclude the defendant is correct and that he is entitled to resentencing under sections 775.082(3)(c) and 921.1401."); Miller v. State , 208 So. 3d 834, 835 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("The State's contention that Miller was parole-eligible as early as twelve years after the commission of first-degree murder is irrelevant."). We do so here, too. We reverse the trial court's order denying Reid's motion…1 / 2
-
Carter v. State, 215 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…endant’s] sentence is unconstitutional under Graham, we conclude that [the defendant] should be resentenced in light of the new juvenile sentencing legislation enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2014, ch.2014-220, Laws of Fla.”); Miller v. State, 208 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The State’s contention that [the defendant] was parole-eligible as early as twelve years after the commission of first-degree murder is irrelevant.”). We therefore reverse the defendant’s aggregate 152-year sentence for burglar…
-
Ortiz v. State, 225 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…y.2 In 2016, the trial court denied the motion [*311] for post-conviction relief, and Pizzaro-Or-tiz appealed. Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) and our recent decision in Miller v. State, 208 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), Pizzaro-Ortiz is entitled to judicial review and resentencing. We therefore reverse Pizzaro-Ortiz’s life sentences and remand to the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under sections 775.082(1)(b)(1), 921.1401, and 921.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cordero Neely v. State, 207 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)