Case Name: Patrick Joseph SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-06-05
Citations: 113 So. 3d 1058
Docket Number: No. 1D11-3579
Parties: Patrick Joseph SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur, and VAN NORTWICK, J., specially concurs with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 113
Pages: 1058–1063

Head Matter:
Patrick Joseph SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D11-3579.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 5, 2013.
Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bond, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Joseph Smith appeals an order denying his motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he asserted that his life sentence for felony murder was illegal under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court released Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and we ordered supplemental briefing as to the effect of Miller on this appeal. Subsequently, a panel of this court held that Miller should not be applied retroactively, relying upon Geter v. State, 115 So.3d 375, 2012 WL 4448860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Gonzalez controls the case under view. See also Falcon v. State, 111 So.3d 973, 2013 WL 1809742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Johnson v. State, — So.3d —, 2013 WL 1809685, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Accordingly, we affirm. We also certify the same question of great public importance certified by the Falcon panel:
WHETHER THE RULE ESTABLISHED IN MILLER V. ALABAMA, - U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2460, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), "THAT MANDATORY LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 AT THE TIME OF THEIR CRIMES VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENTE ]," SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT?
WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur, and VAN NORTWICK, J., specially concurs with written opinion.