KENNETH LYDELL JACKSON, 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.
Kenneth Lydell Jackson, a juvenile offender, appealed a trial court's partial denial of his motion to correct his sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that a juvenile defendant is entitled to both a juvenile sentence review hearing and a full resentencing hearing, and therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for a resentencing hearing.
A juvenile defendant is entitled to both a juvenile sentence review hearing and a full resentencing hearing under Florida Statutes sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402. It is error to modify a juvenile defendant's sentence to allow for a review hearing without also holding a resentencing hearing.
[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 motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be granted in part and denied in part.
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“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.”
Establishes the court's controlling legal principle that juvenile defendants are entitled to both a review hearing and a full resentencing hearing
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was sixteen years old when he committed the offenses. He entered open pleas to burglary of a conveyance while armed (count I), attempted robbe…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Kenneth Lydell Jackson appeals the partial denial of his motion to correct sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Jackson, who was sixteen years old at the time of his offenses, entered open pleas to burglary of a conveyance while armed (count I), attempted robbery with a firearm (count II), and possession of a firearm by a delinquent (count III). He was sentenced to concurrent twenty-five year terms of prison on counts I and II. On count III, he received a concurrent fifteen-year prison sentence. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Jackson argued that he was entitled to a full resentencing hearing and a judicial review of his sentence. The trial court granted Jackson's motion, in part, amending the sentencing documents to allow for a juvenile sentence review hearing, but denying a new resentencing hearing.
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 hearing, but reverse and remand to allow the court to conduct a full resentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
BERGER, J., concurring specially.
BERGER, J., concurring specially.
I concur based on this Court's decisions in Ruiz v. State, 242 So.3d 1204, Katwaroo v. State, 237 So.3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), and Davis v. State, 230 So.3d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). However, were I *424writing on a clean slate, I would affirm. In my view, Jackson 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 sentences are not de facto life sentences. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 214 So.3d 799, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Ruiz v. State, 242 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)