TYWANN OCTAVIOUS CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant Carter, convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder as a juvenile, challenges his life sentence and consecutive 20-year sentence. The court affirms his convictions but reverses and remands for resentencing under recent Florida Supreme Court precedent requiring consideration of youth characteristics in juvenile sentencing and permitting discretionary consecutive sentencing.
The convictions are affirmed, but the life sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing. The trial court must conduct a hearing considering youth and its attendant characteristics under Miller v. Alabama and section 921.1401, Florida Statutes. On remand, the trial court has discretion under Williams v. State to determine whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.
[1] The Florida Supreme Court has extended the holding in Miller v. …
[2] A sentencing court must conduct a hearing and consider "youth and its attendant characteristics" when sentencing a juvenile offender.
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 Florida Supreme Court has very recently extended Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), to apply to non-mandatory life sentences for juveniles as well as to mandatory life sentences for juveniles”
Establishes the extension of Miller protections to non-mandatory juvenile life sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was 16 years old when he committed second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder with a firearm in a single criminal episode invol…
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 Juvenile Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant asserts several challenges to his convictions and' sentences of life in prison for second-degree murder and a consecutive 20-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder with a- firearm. Appellant was sixteen years old at the time of Committing these offenses. They occurred in a single criminal episode involving multiple victims and multiple discharges of firearms, thus triggering the 10-20-Life statute in section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes. We have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments and affirm his convictions without further comment, but two recent decisions from the Florida Supreme Court require us to reverse Appellant’s sentences and remand for resentenc-ing. -
With respect to Appellant’s young age at the time of committing these offenses, the Florida Supreme Court has very recently extended Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), to apply to non-mandatory life sentences for juveniles as well as to mandatory life sentences for juveniles. Landrum v. State, 192 So.3d 459, at 459-62, 469-70 (Fla.2016). The court in Landrum further held that the sentencing court must conduct a hearing and must consider “youth and its attendant characteristics” as set forth in Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2460; and that resentencing must occur “in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes [2014].” Landrum, 2016 WL 3191099 at *2. We therefore reverse Appellant’s life sentence and-remand for resentencing in accordance with Landrum.
With respect to whether Appellant’s sentences for his two convictions could be imposed consecutively, the trial court here believed that under earlier precedent it was required to impose consecutive sentences. Under Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), however, the trial court had discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences. 186 So.3d at 993. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether Appellant’s sentences should be consecutive or concurrent, consistent with Williams,
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wade v. State, 201 So. 3d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016)
- Laisha L. Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016)