NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

IRVIN LANDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-4827 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge. Andrea M. Norgard of Norgard, Norgard & Chastang, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Irvin Landy appeals from the order denying his motion to corre ct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a ). We reverse and remand for resentencing.- 2 - In 1992 a jury found Mr. Landy guilty of first-degree murder. At the time of the offense, Mr. Landy was seventeen years old. The trial cour t sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. In his motion to correct illegal sentence, Mr. Landy sought re lief under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). He claimed that bec ause he was a juvenile when the offense was committed, he was entitled to a resentenci ng hearing pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. See Horsley v. State, 160 S o. 3d 393, 405-06 (Fla. 2015) (holding that the remedy for an unconstitutional sentence under Miller is resentencing under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida). The pos tconviction court denied Mr. Landy's motion based upon then-existing case law. S ee, e.g., McPherson v. State, 138 So. 3d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (stating that M iller was inapplicable

because McPherson was sentenced to life in prison with parole e ligibility after twentyfive years); Atwell v. State, 128 So. 3d 167, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that Miller was inapplicable to a life sentence with parole eligibility aft er twenty-five years). While this appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court quash ed the Fourth District's Atwell decision. See Atwell v. State, 197 So . 3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 2016). The court concluded that "Florida's existing parole sys tem, as set forth by statute, does not provide for individualized consideration of A twell's juvenile status at the time of the murder, as requi red by Miller, and that his sen tence, which is virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole, is th erefore unconstitutional." Id. at 1041. The court held that juveniles sentenced to life w ith the possibility of parole are entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-2 20, Laws of Florida. Id. at 1050 (citing Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 399). The supreme court also quashed this- 3 - court's decision in McPherson. S ee McPherson v. State, No. SC1 4-1369 (Fla. Oct. 28, 2016) (remanding for resentencing in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Landy's motion a nd remand for resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, which wa s codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402.

Reversed and remanded.

KELLY, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.