REGINALD WILKINSON, 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.
Reginald Wilkinson, sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment at age sixteen for first-degree murder in 1994, challenged his sentence as unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The court reversed the mandatory life sentence and remanded for resentencing under Florida's new juvenile sentencing statutes that provide judicial discretion.
Mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as established in Miller v. Alabama. Wilkinson's mandatory life sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing under Florida's new sentencing statutes (§§ 775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402) that allow judicial discretion to consider individual circumstances.
[1] The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.
[2] Sentencing schemes that mandate life in prison without parole for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders”
Establishes the constitutional prohibition from Miller v. Alabama that forms the basis for the court's decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilkinson was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm in 1994 when he was sixteen years old. He was sentenced to mandatory life in prison with…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Reginald Wilkinson filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contesting his mandatory life sentence imposed for a murder he committed at the age of sixteen. The postconviction court denied the motion without a hearing. We reverse the mandatory life sentence and remand for sentencing under sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes.
In 1994, Wilkinson was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm for a crime he committed when sixteen years old. He was sentenced to life in prison with eligibility for parole after twenty-five years, as was mandatory under the law at the time.
Decades later, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455. 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). Miller held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” In response to Miller, the Florida legislature ended mandatory life sentences for juveniles. It also adopted guidelines that provided a sentencing judge with discretion to sentence a juvenile to life, but only after consideration of the individual circumstances concerning the juvenile and the crime. §§ 775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla. Stat.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that Miller should be applied retroactively. Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954 (Fla. 2015). Indeed, it applied Miller retroactively to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years, essentially the same sentence as the one at issue here. Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040, 1048 (Fla. 2016) (“In most respects, a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, based on the way Florida’s parole process operates under the existing statutory scheme, actually resembles a mandatorily imposed life sentence without parole that is not proportionate to the offense and the offender.” (quotations omitted)). We have interpreted Atwell to require reversal in circumstances similar to this case. See Neely v. State, 207 So.3d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Miller v. State, 3D15-2492, 208 So.3d 834, 834-35, 2017 WL 362547, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 25, 2017).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilkinson v. State Attorney's Off. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…sixteen years old. Thereafter, in 2017, this Court reversed Wilkinson’s life sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing as required at the time by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama.1 Wilkinson v. State, 212 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Wilkinson I”). Notwithstanding this Court’s remand instructions in Wilkinson I, Wilkinson has not been resentenced because Wilkinson, acting pro se, has filed a series of unsuccessful motions and petitions seeking, among nume…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015)
- Miller v. State, 208 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Cordero Neely v. State, 207 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)