LINDA PEDROZA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 forty-year sentence imposed on a juvenile for second-degree murder does not violate the Eighth Amendment under current Supreme Court precedent and does not require resentencing under Florida law.
[1] A defendant challenging a sentence imposed as a juvenile must identify a clear, binding decision of the United States Supreme Court or Florida Supreme Court that the sent…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda Pedroza, convicted of second-degree murder of her mother when she was a juvenile, received a forty-year sentence. She filed a 3.800 motion to co…
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals the circuit court’s denial of her motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging the forty-year sentence imposed following a second-degree murder conviction. She has not shown that her sentence, imposed when she was a juvenile for the murder of her mother, violates the Eighth Amendment as construed by any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor has she identified any clear, binding Florida Supreme Court decision that requires resentencing. We note the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decisions in both Morris v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S223a (Fla. May 10, 2018) and Williams v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S183 (Fla. Apr. 19, 2018), involved concessions of error by the state.
Thus, we affirm based on Hart v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D970a (Fla. 4th DCA May 2, 2018) (en banc). As we did in Hart, we certify conflict with Cuevas v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D563 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 9, 2018), Blount v. State, 238 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), Alfaro v. State, 233 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017),
2
and Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We also certify conflict with Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) and Tarrand v. State, 199 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
Affirmed; conflict certified. CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Javarus Lamont Morgan v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jessy J. Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Mosier v. State, 235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Alfaro v. State, 233 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Rachaun Blount v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Deryck Lee Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Cuevas v. State, 241 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Tarrand v. State, 199 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)