HOLMES
v.
STATE
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.
A life sentence does not constitute an unconstitutionally indefinite term of imprisonment under Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A sentence of life imprisonment does not violate the Florida Constitution's prohibition against an indefinite term of imprisonment.
[2] A defendant's repeated, unsuccessful challenges to a sentence may warrant an order directing the defendant to show cause why they should not be prohibited from filing fur…
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 intelligence“a sentence of life imprisonment does not violate the proscription in Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution against an indefinite term of imprisonment”
Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005), cited by the court as controlling precedent on the constitutionality of life sentences.
In 2002, Holmes was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, attempted robbery, and attempted burglary with assault, with a firearm enhancement fin…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 17 cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 24, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-240 Lower Tribunal No. 01-18524A
________________
Rodney H. Holmes,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Nushin G. Sayfie, Judge.
Rodney H. Holmes, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Holmes appeals the Miami-Dade Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 2002, Holmes was convicted of attempted first degree murder, attempted robbery, and attempted burglary with an assault;
and the jury further found that a firearm was discharged and caused great bodily harm during the commission of these crimes. The trial court sentenced Holmes to life imprisonment.1 This sentence was affirmed in Holmes v. State, 883 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Thereafter, Holmes has filed ten post-conviction motions or petitions in this
Court, including the instant petition.2 He has attacked his sentence unsuccessfully by arguing that his sentence under a firearm enhancement was unlawful because there was insufficient evidence at trial that he possessed or discharged a firearm during the alleged crimes (an argument he again makes in pending case 3D16-2076). In the instant appeal, Holmes alleges that his life sentence is unconstitutionally impermissible because it is indefinite. As the trial court noted in
its written order below, this issue has been resolved by the Florida Supreme Court adverse to Holmes’s position. Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (holding that a sentence of life imprisonment does not violate the proscription in
Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution against an indefinite term of imprisonment).
Accordingly, we deny the instant petition.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Holmes is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his criminal sentencing in circuit court case number 01-18524A.
If Holmes does not demonstrate good cause, any such further and unauthorized filings by Holmes will subject him to appropriate sanctions,
including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of
Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017).
Petition denied. Order to show cause issued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. State, 245 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Simmons v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
Jerrie M. Baist v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2005)
- Luis v. State, 982 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Holmes v. State, 883 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Holmes v. State, 221 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Holmes v. State, 46 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- K.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 221 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)