STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
ALEXANDER JONES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case consolidates appeals by the State of Florida challenging lower courts' denials of motions to rescind orders that granted resentencing for juvenile offenders. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, holding that the orders denying the motions to rescind were not appealable because the original resentencing orders were final.
No, the orders denying the State's motions to rescind are not appealable. The original orders granting resentencing were final, and the circuit courts correctly determined they lacked jurisdiction to reconsider them.
[1] The State's right to appeal in a criminal case is wholly dependent on statutory authorization, which must be construed narrowly.
[2] Orders denying a motion to rescind a prior order granting resentencing are not appealable when the prior order granting resentencing is final and the court denying rescis…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The State’s right to appeal in a criminal case is wholly dependent on statutory authorization, and this Court must construe the statute narrowly.”
Establishes the principle that appellate rights for the State are limited by statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees, juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison, were granted resentencing based on Atwell v. State, which found juvenile life sentences wit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Right Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D18-5224
v. SHELTON JACKSON,
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.
No. 1D18-5246
v. JACKIE LEE COGDELL,
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Bruce Anderson, Judge.
No. 1D18-5247
v. CARNELL ERNEST GRAYER,
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Bruce Anderson, Judge.
No. 1D19-0111
v. KENNETH LOWE,
No. 1D19-0122
v. ALEXANDER JONES,
No. 1D19-0124
v. DARNELL SMITH,
July 22, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellees in these cases, which we consolidate for disposition, were each sentenced to life in prison for offenses committed as juveniles and were all later granted resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) (holding that a juvenile life sentence with the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment as it is effectively a life sentence without parole under Florida’s statutory parole process). The State did not appeal the orders granting resentencing. Prior to any of the Appellees being resentenced, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018), which implicitly overruled Atwell, finding that a juvenile offender’s life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years does not violate the Eighth Amendment because the juvenile has a meaningful opportunity to receive parole. The Florida Supreme Court later held similarly in Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018).
After the mandate issued in Michel but before Franklin became final, the State filed in each case a motion to rescind the order that granted resentencing. The State argued that the change in the law effected by Michel warranted this relief. Alternatively, the State sought to stay resentencing until the opinion in Franklin became final. In each case, the circuit court denied the State’s motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to rescind the order granting resentencing. The State then appealed. Appellees now file motions to dismiss arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders denying the State’s motions to rescind. We agree that the orders are not appealable. The State’s right to appeal in a criminal case is wholly dependent on statutory authorization, and this Court must construe the statute narrowly. Exposito v. State, 891 So. 2d 525, 527-28 (Fla. 2004). The plain language of sections 924.066 and 924.07, Florida Statutes (2018), does not authorize these appeals.
The State argues that the orders denying the motions to rescind are appealable as orders granting postconviction relief. See § 924.066(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(J).
However, the postconviction relief in these cases had already been granted in the orders granting resentencing. As the circuit court has noted in the orders now appealed, the time for the State to seek review of the orders granting resentencing was within 30 days after those orders were rendered. The orders granting resentencing are now final. Simmons v. State, 2019 WL 2128216, *2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Jordan v. State, 81 So. 3d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Rather than granting postconviction relief, the orders denying the State’s motions to rescind merely found that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the orders granting resentencing.
The State also argues that the orders denying its motions to rescind are appealable as orders imposing an illegal sentence. See § 924.07(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(M). We reject this argument as resentencing has not yet taken place. Once the Appellees are resentenced, the State may appeal any sentence that it believes to be illegal.
Accordingly, these appeals are DISMISSED.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018)
- Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018)
- Exposito v. State, 891 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2004)
- Jordan v. State, 81 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)