MORGAN AMANDA LEPPERT, 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.
Morgan Amanda Leppert appealed her first-degree murder conviction and sentences, challenging the constitutionality of her sentence under the Eighth Amendment and arguing that a jury, not the trial court, should have made the factual finding that she killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the conviction and sentence but reversed in part to correct the judicial review eligibility dates.
The court affirmed Leppert's conviction and most of her sentence. The court held that the trial court did not err in making the factual finding under section 775.082 that Leppert killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim, as authorized by prior case law. However, the court reversed in part to correct the judicial review eligibility dates for the robbery and burglary convictions to comply with section 921.1402(2)(d), requiring review after twenty years rather than twenty-five years.
[1] A trial court may make the factual determination as to whether a defendant actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill a victim, as required by statute.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a review of robbery and burglary convictions after twenty years, pursuant to section 921.1402(2)(d), Florida Statutes.
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“Our supreme court has expressly authorized a trial court to make the factual determination as to whether a defendant actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill a victim.”
Establishes the court's legal basis for upholding the trial court's authority to make the section 775.082 finding without jury involvement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeppert was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery, and robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court, rather than a jury,…
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 Burglary With Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
Morgan Amanda Leppert appeals her judgment and sentence for first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery, and robbery with a deadly weapon. Lep-pert raises four issues: 1) her lengthy sentence violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment laid out in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010); 2) the trial court erred in not having a jury determine whether she killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim; 3) the trial court erred in finding that she killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim; and 4) Lep-pert’s fifty-year sentences for the burglary and robbery charges violate the Eighth Amendment because they are de facto life sentences that fail to provide her with a meaningful opportunity for release and rehabilitation. We affirm on these issues.
As to the second issue, the trial court made the requisite finding required by section 775.082, Florida Statutes (2016), that Leppert killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. Leppert contends that the jury was required to make this finding under the statute. In a strikingly similar case, this court recently determined that the trial court did not err in making such a finding. Williams v. State, 211 So.3d 1070, 2017 WL 539773 (Fla. 5th DGA Feb. 10, 2017) (“Our supreme court has expressly authorized a trial court to make the factual determination as to whether a defendant actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill a victim.” (citing Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954, 963 (Fla. 2015))).
Lastly, we note that the trial court provided in Leppert’s sentence that she was eligible for a judicial review hearing after twenty-five years for all three charges. Pursuant to section 921.1402(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2016), Leppert was entitled to a review of her robbery and burglary convictions after twenty years. § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016). We accordingly reverse that part of the sentencing order and remand this case for entry of an amended sentencing order consistent with this opinion.
As we did in Williams, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
DOES ALLEYNE V. UNITED STATES, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), REQUIRE THE JURY AND NOT THE TRIAL COURT TO MAKE THE FACTUAL FINDING UNDER SECTION 775.082(1)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES (2016), AS TO WHETHER A JUVENILE OFFENDER ACTUALLY KILLED, INTENDED TO KILL, OR ATTEMPTED TO KILL THE VICTIM?
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan A. Leppert v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D363 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Morgan Amanda Leppert v. State, 249 So. 3d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…n. Morgan Amanda Leppert was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary with assault or battery, and robbery with a deadly weapon. Leppert raised four issues in the direct appeal of her judgment and sentence, which we affirmed in Leppert v. State, 215 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). In her second issue, Leppert argued that the trial court erred in not having a jury determine whether she killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim. Based upon our precedent in Williams v. State, 211 So. 3d…
Authorities Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 2015)
- Williams v. State, 211 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)