Opinion ID: 2787425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court of Appeal Decisions

Text: Since Miller was decided, Florida’s district courts have uniformly observed that Miller “opened a breach in Florida’s sentencing statutes.” Hernandez v. State, 117 So. 3d 778, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). However, in general, the district courts have adopted a “measured approach” to crafting an appropriate remedy. Id. at 784. Most district courts have chosen to simply remand cases implicating Miller for resentencing, without providing any specific guidance or definitive direction to trial courts regarding the available sentencing alternatives. See, e.g., Neely v. State, 126 So. 3d 342, 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (remanding for resentencing so that the trial court could conduct an individualized examination of mitigating circumstances in considering the fairness of imposing a life sentence without parole); Washington v. State, 103 So. 3d 917, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting that “if the state again seeks imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of - 14 - parole, the trial court must conduct an individualized examination of mitigating circumstances in considering the fairness of imposing such a sentence”; that a “discourse” regarding the available resentencing options was “premature”; and that the court would “exercise restraint” in considering the remedy). Two specific approaches to the issue of remedy have, however, been suggested by several district court judges. The first is the “statutory revival” approach, initially articulated by Judge Makar’s separate opinion in Partlow v. State, 134 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which he supported the revival of the pre-1994 sentencing statute providing a mandatory sentence of life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for any juvenile offender whose sentence is now unconstitutional under Miller. Id. at 1032 (Makar, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Fifth District, in Horsley, fully adopted Judge Makar’s statutory revival approach and held, in certifying the question to this Court, that “the only sentence now available in Florida for a charge of capital murder committed by a juvenile is life with the possibility of parole after twentyfive years.” Horsley, 121 So. 3d at 1131. In addition, other courts and judges have cited favorably to the statutory revival option. See Rodriguez-Giudicelli v. State, 143 So. 3d 947, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that “the trial court did not err when it applied the doctrine of statutory revival to sentence Rodriguez-Giudicelli pursuant to the 1993 version of section 775.082(1) for a premeditated murder - 15 - committed when he was a minor”); Toye, 133 So. 3d at 547 (Villanti, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (disagreeing with “the majority’s decision to refuse to provide any guidance to the postconviction court concerning the sentencing options available to it on remand” and stating that “this court should address the issue and specifically should utilize the doctrine of statutory revival to authorize the postconviction court to impose a legal sentence on Toye pursuant to the 1993 version of section 775.082(1)”). The second approach regarding the appropriate remedy allows for “a sentence of a term of years without possibility of parole,” which Judge Wolf’s separate opinion in Washington considered to be the only option that “gives the trial court the discretion mandated by Miller.” Washington, 103 So. 3d at 921-22 (Wolf, J., concurring). Judge Wolf explained that “the only sentencing alternative specifically authorized by the Legislature, a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole, is unconstitutional” under Miller and the trial court therefore “must have the discretion to impose an alternate sentence based on the facts of an individual case.” Id. at 920. This general approach that would permit trial courts to sentence juvenile homicide offenders to a term of years up to and including life imprisonment has been embraced in two other separate opinions. See Walling v. State, 105 So. 3d 660, 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Wright, Associate Judge, concurring) (relying on - 16 - “Miller’s emphasis on the availability of discretion by the trial judge” in asserting that a judge “who encounters a Miller sentencing or resentencing should conduct a separate hearing before sentencing, allow presentations by the State and the defense, and then decide if a life without parole sentence is indicated” in consideration of “the teaching in Miller”); see also Thomas v. State, 135 So. 3d 590, 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Osterhaus, J., specially concurring) (explaining his view that “the trial judge’s decision to resentence the juvenile defendant in this case to forty years without parole on the murder charge finds express statutory support in Florida’s sentencing statute” because the defendant could be sentenced as a “life” felon under section 775.082(3)(a)3. since homicide committed by a juvenile is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for life). While no consensus has been reached, the district courts have thoughtfully considered this issue, and, at the time of these opinions, did not have the benefit, as we now do, of the Legislature’s directive as to how to comply with Miller. During the 2014 Regular Session, however, the Florida Legislature changed the legal landscape by enacting juvenile sentencing legislation to remedy the federal constitutional infirmities in Florida’s juvenile sentencing laws, as identified by the Supreme Court in Miller and Graham.