HENRY MARTIN DAVIS, 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.
The court held that a life sentence with parole eligibility for a juvenile offender is unconstitutional under Graham v. Florida and Atwell v. State, requiring resentencing.
Henry Martin Davis, a juvenile offender, was sentenced to concurrent life terms for rape and robbery in 1972, with parole eligibility. He filed a moti…
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 Atwell V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry Martin Davis appeals the order denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking relief under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) (holding that the Eighth Amendment forbids a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender who committed a nonhomicide offense), and Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). We reverse and remand for resentencing.
In 1972, Davis was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for rape and robbery. At that time, a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment was eligible for parole. See § 947.16(1), Fla. Stat. (1971). In Atwell, the supreme court concluded that Florida’s existing parole system does not provide for individualized consideration of a defendant’s juvenile status at the time of his or her offense. 197 So.3d at 1041. As a result, a life sentence with parole eligibility is virtually indistinguishable from a life sentence without parole. Id. The court held that the remedy for such an unconstitutional sentence is resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Id. at 1050 (citing Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393, 399 (Fla. 2015)).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Davis’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for resentencing under sections 921.1401 and .1402, Florida Statutes (2016), which codified chapter 14-220.
*780Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
WALLACE, LaROSE, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)