FRANCOIS
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.
Richardson Francois appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for relief from judgment based on Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama for crimes committed as a juvenile. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that Francois's thirty-year sentence does not constitute a Graham/Miller violation because it provides for release at a determinable age.
The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Francois failed to prove a Graham/Miller violation because his thirty-year sentence guarantees release at age forty-seven and therefore does not constitute a sentence violative of the juvenile sentencing protections established in Graham and Miller.
[1] Graham v. …
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 intelligenceIn August 1998, Francois was sentenced to thirty years in state prison for two counts of armed robbery committed when he was seventeen years old. In A…
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 Miller V. Alabama cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDSEY, J.
Richardson Francois appeals the summary denial of his motion for relief from judgment entered for crimes he committed while he was a juvenile. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In August of 1998, Francois was sentenced to thirty years in state prison after being convicted of two counts of armed robbery. The crimes were committed when Francois was seventeen years old. In August of 2017, Francois moved the trial court for relief under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and their Florida progeny. Francois argued that because the sentence imposed was for crimes committed when he was a juvenile, he is entitled to have his sentenced reviewed pursuant to sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2017). After a response from the State, the trial court summarily denied Francois’s motion finding it to be legally insufficient and successive.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief, albeit on other grounds. Francois was sentenced to serve thirty years in state prison. The State asserts that Francois is “guaranteed release at the age of forty seven.” Under these circumstances, Francois has failed to prove a Graham/Miller violation that would entitle him to the benefits of the new juvenile sentencing law. See Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The Florida Supreme Court has not yet applied Graham to a thirty-year or shorter sentence . . . [N]o decision from the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded Graham so broadly that it would encompass a 30-year sentence.” ), rev. granted, No. SC18-967, 2018 WL 4614150 (Fla. Sept. 7, 2018)1;
see also Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (affirming a forty-year sentence following a second degree murder conviction imposed when Pedroza was a juvenile), rev. granted, No. SC 18-964, 2018 WL 6433136 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Pedroza v. State, 244 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Wagner v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- German v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)