JAVARUS MORGAN
v.
THE 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 trial court is not required to make factual findings on every statutory factor listed in section 921.1402(6), Florida Statutes, but only on factors the court deems relevant and actually considers in resentencing a juvenile offender.
[1] A trial court conducting a resentencing hearing for a juvenile offender under Florida Statutes section 921.1402(6) is not required to make factual findings on every enume…
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 intelligence“the court shall consider any factor it deems appropriate, including any of the following”
Section 921.1402(6), Florida Statutes (2022), providing discretion in sentencing factor consideration
Javarus Morgan appealed his resentencing as a juvenile offender following a trial court's sentence modification. The case involved application of stat…
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.
Opinion filed March 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1828 Lower Tribunal No. F01-21587B
________________
Javarus Morgan,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Vizcaino, Judge. Javarus Morgan, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 921.1402(6), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing a list of enumerated factors for a trial court to consider in “determining if it is appropriate to modify the juvenile offender’s sentence” and further providing that “the court shall consider any factor it deems appropriate, including any of the following. . . .”) (emphasis added); Dortch v. State, 266 So. 3d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (in conducting a sentencing hearing pursuant to related section 921.1401, Florida Statutes—which provides a list of enumerated factors for a trial court to consider in “determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence” and providing that “the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the defendant's youth and attendant circumstances”—the trial court is not required to make factual findings of any statutory factor not relevant nor considered by the court); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.781(c) (providing procedures for the trial court to follow for “resentencing any juvenile offender whose sentence is determined to be unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012) or Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)”; further providing that the trial court “shall make specific findings on the record that all relevant factors have been reviewed and considered by the court prior to imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Dortch v. State, 266 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)