TYZICK JOSEPH WALL, 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.
Tyzick Joseph Wall, a juvenile offender, appeals his convictions for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and two counts of dealing in stolen property. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirms the convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing on the murder count because Wall was entitled to a jury fact-finding on whether he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim, and remands to amend the robbery sentence to reflect proper eligibility for sentence review.
Wall was entitled to a jury fact-finding on whether he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim under Alleyne v. United States and Williams v. State. The trial court's failure to obtain this finding was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The remedy is resentencing under section 775.082(3)(b)2., with the trial court indicating Wall's eligibility for sentence review after fifteen years. The robbery sentence must also be amended to reflect eligibility for sentence review after twenty years.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury finding on whether they actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim when the charge is second-degree murder with…
[2] A harmless error analysis applies to the failure to obtain a jury finding on whether the defendant actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim in a…
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“Wall was entitled to a jury fact-finding on whether he "actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill" Stephen Gorney.”
Establishes the core holding that jury fact-finding was required on Wall's specific role in the killing before sentencing could be imposed for a life felony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyzick Joseph Wall was under eighteen years old when he committed second-degree murder with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and two cou…
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 Felony Reclassification cases and more on FLexlaw
*1015Tyzick Joseph Wall appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, and two counts of dealing in stolen property.1 Wall was under the age of eighteen when he committed these crimes. We affirm his convictions without further discussion but remand for resentencing on Count One, second-degree murder. We also remand for the trial court to amend the sentence on Count Two, robbery with a deadly weapon.
As to Wall's sentence on Count One, we reverse because Wall was entitled to a jury fact-finding on whether he "actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill" Stephen Gorney.2 See Williams v. State, 242 So.3d 280, 288-89 (Fla. 2018) (citing Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 115, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) ). We find that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 289-90. Because second-degree murder with a deadly weapon is a first-degree felony reclassified as a life felony under sections 775.087(1)(a) and 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (2015), Wall should have been sentenced under section 775.082(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2015). Williams specifies resentencing as though there had been a jury finding that Wall did not kill, intend to kill, or attempt to kill Gorney, rather than empanelment of a jury, as the remedy for this error. 242 So.3d at 292-93. We, therefore, remand for resentencing on Count One pursuant to section 775.082(3)(b)2.b. See Williams, 242 So.3d at 288-93. The trial court shall indicate in the sentencing document that Wall is eligible for sentence review on this count after fifteen years under section 921.1402(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). § 775.082(3)(b)2.b., c., Fla. Stat. (2015).
We also remand for the trial court to amend the sentence on Count Two, robbery with a deadly weapon, to reflect eligibility for sentence review after twenty years under section 921.1402(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2015). § 775.083(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2015). In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
ORFINGER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Rodrick D. Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018)