LARRY ROGERS, 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.
Larry Rogers appeals the denial of his motion challenging his life sentence imposed when he was seventeen for robbery as unconstitutional under Graham v. Florida. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that because Rogers was actually released on parole twice, he received more protection than Graham requires and therefore cannot show an Eighth Amendment violation.
Rogers cannot demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation under Graham because he was actually released on parole twice, which exceeds what Graham requires. Graham prohibits imposing life without parole on juvenile nonhomicide offenders but only requires giving them a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, not guaranteeing eventual freedom.
[1] A juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime is not guaranteed eventual freedom, but must be given a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrate…
[2] The Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from imposing a life without parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, but does not require the state to release that off…
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“A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime. What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation”
The court's statement of the Graham standard establishing that states need only provide a meaningful opportunity for release, not guarantee eventual freedom
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRogers was convicted of robbery in 1972 at age seventeen and sentenced to life with possibility of parole. He was released on parole after seven years…
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 Graham V. Florida Juvenile Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Rogers timely appeals the trial court’s order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion, where he alleged that his sentence is unconstitutional under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). We affirm, because Rogers has not shown a violation of the Eighth Amendment under Graham.
In 1972, Rogers was convicted of robbery, an offense he committed at the age of seventeen. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. After spending seven years in prison, Rogers was released on parole. Rogers was rein-carcerated in 1979 when he violated his parole by committing robbery with a deadly weapon at the age of twenty-eight. He was released on parole again in 1990, but was reincarcerated again after violating his parole by committing grand theft in 1999.
Rogers claims that he is serving a de facto life without parole sentence for a nonhomicide crime committed as a juvenile in violation of the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by Graham and Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015). He requests resentencing pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which is the proper remedy for a Graham violation. Henry, 175 So.3d at 680.
Because Rogers was released on parole, he cannot show a violation of the Eighth Amendment under Graham, which held that:
*282A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime. What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation .... It bears emphasis, however, that while the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a life without parole sentence on a juvenile nonho-micide offender, it does not require the State to release that offender during his natural life.
Graham, 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. (emphasis added),
' A juvenile offender who has actually been released from a prison sentence has received more than what Graham requires. Rogers had an opportunity for release and was in fact released from prison twice on parole. He has ..not shown that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment under Graham, and he is not entitled to resentencing,1 See Currie v. State, No. 1D16-5578, 219. So.3d 960, 960-61, 2017 WL 2350119, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA May .31, 2017) (reaching a similar conclusion for different reasons).
Affirmed.
Warner, Gross and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Vennisee v. State, 235 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ing under Florida’s newly-enacted juvenile sentencing scheme. Rooks, 224 So. 3d at 273. The First District and Fourth District Courts of Appeal reached the same conclusion in Currie v. State, 219 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), and Rogers v. State, 223 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017),'respective-ly. Currie was a juvenile when he committed an armed sexual battery and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Currie, 219 So. 3d at 960. When Currie was twenty-five years old he was released…
-
Simmons v. State, 274 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…e years’ imprisonment was not cruel and unusual punishment). 3 Vennissee v. State, 235 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Wright v. State, 225 So. 3d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Rooks v. State, 224 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Rodgers v. State, 223 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). 4 2012). And the supreme court has agreed. See Taylor v. State, 140 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2014). In Jordan, we addressed for the first time whether a postconviction order granting resentencing is final when resen…
-
Stern v. State, 240 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Leighdon Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015)
- Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016)