Amendments to 921.1401

1. Horsley v. State

   160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015)   Cited 162 times

   [Section 2] 921.1401—Sentence of life imprisonment for persons who are

   PAGE 401
2. Landrum v. State

   192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 28 times

   This cursory acknowledgement of a juvenile offender's youth and how its attendant characteristics counseled against sentencing the juvenile offender to a lifetime of incarceration in the sentencing scheme Landrum was sentenced under is vastly different from the sentencing factors Miller prescribes, and which are now codified in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (2014). These sentencing factors include consideration of the “defendant's age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and mental and emotional health at the time of the offense,” section 921.1401(2)(c), and the “effect, if any, of familial pressure or peer pressure on the defendant's actions,” section 921.1401(2)(g), as well as the “effect, if any, of immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences on the defendant's participation in the offense.” § 921.1401(2)(e). Miller 's emphasis on the rarity of life imprisonment sentences for juvenile offenders, coupled with absence of any consideration of the distinctive attributes of youth by Landrum's sentencing court, render Landrum's sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as construed by Miller.

   PAGE 468
3. Dortch v. State

   266 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times

   In imposing Mr. Dortch's sentence, the trial court made it clear at the resentencing hearing and in its written order that it had reviewed and considered the factors listed in § 921.1401(2) before it resentenced Mr. Dortch to life imprisonment. Twice at the hearing, the trial court stated the findings specifically required by the rule: that all relevant factors required by § 921.1401(2) had been "reviewed and considered by the Court, including the entire record and the evidence and arguments submitted at the sentencing hearing ... and that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate." The trial court's written order said much the same thing: "the Court considered the evidence related to the offense, the defendant's youth and attendant circumstances, including, but not limited to those enumerated in § 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes [and] has concluded that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate."

   PAGE 1243
4. Martinez v. State

   256 So. 3d 897 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 7 times

   Appellant also argues that section 921.1401 supersedes the 10-20-Life statute as applied to juveniles. We also reject this argument as, by its terms, section 921.1401 does not supersede the 10-20-Life statute. See Young , 219 So.3d at 210–11 (holding that "there is no clear indication that when it enacted the juvenile sentencing laws in 2014, the Florida Legislature intended to affect the [mandatory minimums outlined in the 10-20-Life statute]").

   PAGE 900
5. Bellay v. State

   277 So. 3d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

   Following the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Miller and the subsequent enactment of section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief, contending that his life sentence as a juvenile offender violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that, per Miller and section 921.1401, he was entitled to an individualized resentencing hearing. With the State's consent, a resentencing hearing was scheduled.
6. Bell v. State

   313 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 6 times

   In the aftermath of Graham and Miller , the Florida Legislature enacted section 921.1401, providing for a separate hearing "to determine if a term of imprisonment for life or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence." § 921.1401(1), Fla. Stat. It requires that, "in determining [whether a life sentence is appropriate], the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the defendant's youth and attendant circumstances." § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat. The section sets forth a non-exhaustive list of ten factors considering various aspects of the effects of youth, home life, and the level of a defendant's participation in the offense. § 921.1401(2)(a)–(j), Fla. Stat. The statute requires a sentencing court to consider a juvenile defendant's youth and attendant characteristics before determining that life without parole is a proportionate sentence.

   PAGE 1188
7. Simmons v. State

   267 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

   Simmons first argues the trial court erred in several of its findings on the statutory factors set forth in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes. However, as no contemporaneous objection was made at the time of alleged errors at the sentencing hearing, the issues were not preserved for review. Accordingly, this Court may only review claims of fundamental error. See Nawaz v. State , 28 So.3d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). If a court considers a constitutionally impermissible factor in imposing a sentence fundamental error can occur. See Macan v. State , 179 So.3d 551, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Here, none of Simmons' claims of error involve impermissible factors. He merely disagrees with the trial court's assessment of the required factors under section 921.1401. The statute requires only that the trial court "consider" these factors before it can impose a life sentence. § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat. As the trial court did so, no fundamental error occurred.

   PAGE 1069
8. State v. Purdy

   252 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 7 times

   While the 2015 version of the Florida Statutes applies to the case at issue and is therefore the version cited in this opinion, the current 2018 version of the Florida Statutes is the same for sections 921.1401, 921.1402, and 775.082.

   PAGE 726
9. Mosier v. State

   235 So. 3d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 22 times

   Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand for Mosier to be resentenced under the juvenile sentencing guidelines codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2016). See Johnson, 215 So.3d at 1243.

   PAGE 958
10. Davis v. State

    230 So. 3d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    This is an appeal from the trial court's order below granting in part and denying in part Appellant's motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it modified his sentence without holding a resentencing hearing. We agree, and remand for resentencing. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; see also Kelsey v. State, 206 So.3d 5, 10–11 (Fla. 2016) ("Because we determine that resentencing is the appropriate remedy, the trial courts may embrace all of the provisions of chapter 2014–220 [which was codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes ] and are not required to limit themselves to only applying the judicial review provision."). The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed.

    PAGE 488