ALBERTO RUIZ, 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 juvenile defendant sentenced to a lengthy term, which is not a de facto life sentence, is entitled to a resentencing hearing when a review hearing is granted.
[1] A trial court errs by modifying a juvenile defendant's sentence to allow for a review hearing without also holding a resentencing hearing.
[2] A juvenile defendant sentenced to a term of years, which is not a de facto life sentence, may not be entitled to resentencing under Graham v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlberto Ruiz, a juvenile offender, appealed the partial denial of his motion to correct sentence. The trial court granted a juvenile sentence review h…
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 De Facto Life Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Alberto Ruiz appeals the partial denial of his motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).1 Ruiz, who was seventeen years old at the time of his offense, entered an open plea to sexual battery and was sentenced to forty years in prison, followed by a lifetime of sex offender probation. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Ruiz argued that he was entitled to a full resentencing hearing and judicial review of his sentence. The trial court granted Ruiz's motion in part, amending the sentencing documents to allow for a juvenile sentence review hearing, but denying Ruiz a new resentencing hearing.
In Davis v. State, 230 So.3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this Court held that the trial court erred when it modified a juvenile defendant's sentence to allow for a review *1205hearing without also holding a resentencing hearing under sections 775.082, 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014). Accord Katwaroo v. State, 237 So.3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (stating same). Ruiz's situation is identical. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order amending the sentence to provide for a review hearing, but reverse and remand to allow the court to conduct a full resentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J. and ORFINGER, J., concur.
BERGER, J., concurring specially with opinion.
Berger, J., concurring specially.
I concur based on this Court's decision in Davis v. State, 230 So.3d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). However, were I writing on a clean slate, I would affirm. In my view, Ruiz is not entitled to resentencing under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), or Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), because his forty-year sentence is not a de facto life sentence. See Davis v. State, 214 So.3d 799, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 244 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ing. This Court has previously held that it is error to modify a juvenile defendant's sentence to allow for a review hearing without also holding a resentencing hearing under sections 775.082, 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. Ruiz v. State, 242 So. 3d 1204 ; Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Davis v. State, 230 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Jackson's situation is identical. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order amending the sentencing documents to provide for a review…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Damien Davis v. State, 214 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Deryck Lee Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Davis v. State, 230 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)