LUIS ORLANDO PIZARRO ORTIZ, 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.
Luis Orlando Pizarro-Ortiz, sentenced to life imprisonment at age 16 for second-degree murder and armed robbery in 1982, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under Rule 3.850(b)(2). The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that his life sentences violated constitutional protections established in Miller v. Alabama and related precedents requiring individualized consideration for juvenile offenders.
The court held that Pizarro-Ortiz is entitled to judicial review and resentencing. His life sentences are unconstitutional under Miller and related precedents, and the case must be remanded to the trial court for appropriate resentencing under the applicable Florida statutes governing juvenile sentencing.
[1] A mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense is unconstitutional.
[2] A life sentence without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide offense is unconstitutional.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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.”
Establishes the primary legal basis for reversal and the court's holding that the defendant is entitled to relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePizarro-Ortiz was charged at age 16 in 1981 with first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed burglary. He pled guilty to second-degree murder with a…
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 Individualized Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Luis Orlando Pizarro-Ortiz, the defendant, appeals the trial court’s denial of Pizarro-Ortiz’s motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2). We reverse and remand.
The State charged sixteen-year old Pizarro-Ortiz in 1981 with first degree murder, armed robbery, and armed burglary. Pizarro-Ortiz pled guilty to second degree murder with a dangerous weapon and armed robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court dismissed the armed burglary count. In 1982, the trial court sentenced Pizzaro-Ortiz to concurrent life terms on each count.
Pizarro-Ortiz filed a 3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief on October 15, 2015. He sought to vacate his life sentences on the authority of Miller, Graham, and Falcon.1 He argued that he was sixteen-years old when the offenses occurred and had been in prison for the last thirty-four years. Pizzaro-Ortiz contended that his life sentences were contrary to Graham, Miller and Falcon. He further argued that he should receive an individualized resentencing hearing pursuant to Falcon and chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida— the new juvenile sentencing legislation. In addition, Pizarro-Ortiz argued that he was entitled to a determination as to whether he killed, intended to kill, or actually killed the victim, which would determine the minimum punishment he could receive under chapter 2014-220.
In response, the State argued that the life sentence for second-degree murder-did not violate Miller because it was discretionary. The State further argued, in reliance on the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2013 decision in Atwell v. State, 128 So.3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) that Pizarro-Ortiz was not entitled to relief under Miller or Graham because his sentences for the offenses included parole eligibility.2 In 2016, the trial court denied the motion *311for 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 921.1402 Florida Statutes (2016).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Othlone Russ v. State, 232 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…atutes. The State has requested that this case be held in abeyance, however, pending resolution of Franklin v. State, No. SC14-1442, in the Florida Supreme Court.1 As we did in Miller v. State, 208 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), and Ortiz v. State, 225 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA July 19, 2017), we reverse and remand with direction that the trial court is to apply the resentencing provisions identified above. We acknowledge that the State has sought discretionary review of Miller2 and that the Florida Supreme Co…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015)
- Atwell v. State, 128 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016)
- Miller v. State, 208 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)