Case Name: Roderick WASHINGTON, a/k/a Roderick Antwon Washington. Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-09-26
Citations: 257 So. 3d 520
Docket Number: Case No. 2D15-3206
Parties: Roderick WASHINGTON, a/k/a Roderick Antwon Washington. Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 257
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Roderick WASHINGTON, a/k/a Roderick Antwon Washington. Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 2D15-3206
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Opinion filed September 26, 2018
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
KELLY, Judge.
Roderick Washington was convicted of two counts of kidnapping and two counts of first-degree murder. He was seventeen years old when he participated in the offenses with several codefendants. His original sentences were overturned as violations of the Eighth Amendment, Lawton v. State, 181 So.3d 452, 453 (Fla. 2015), and he was resentenced to two life terms and two forty-year terms under section 775.082(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2016), with the proviso that he could petition the court for review after twenty-five years under section 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2016). In resentencing Washington, the sentencing court found that Washington intended to kill the victims.
In this appeal, Washington again challenges the sentences imposed on him, citing Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), which holds that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), requires a jury, rather than a judge, to make the factual finding as to whether the juvenile offender actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. See 242 So.3d at 288. Although the court in Williams concluded that Alleyne violations are subject to harmless error review, 242 So.3d at 289, the violation here cannot be deemed harmless. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to resentence Washington under section 775.082(1)(b)(2). See Williams, 242 So.3d at 294.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.