STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
EDWARD WESBY
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.
A sentence is not unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama or Graham v. Florida merely because it is lengthy, provided the defendant is eligible for parole.
[1] A sentence that renders a defendant eligible for parole does not violate the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Miller v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Wesby was convicted and sentenced in Broward County. He moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his sentence violated the constitutional …
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 Miller V. Alabama cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
v.
EDWARD WESBY, Appellee.
No. 4D16-4246
[January 9, 2019]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 76-1925 CF10C.
Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse. Because the defendant is eligible for parole, his sentence is not unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), or Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). See Franklin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018). He is not therefore entitled to resentencing under section 921.1402, Florida Statutes.
In State v. Michel, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298, S299 (Fla. July 12, 2018), and Franklin, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at S556, the Florida Supreme Court receded from Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). The defendant argues Michel does not create binding precedent because only three justices joined in Justice Polston’s opinion and Justice Lewis concurred only in the result. Michel, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at S300. However, four justices joined the majority in Franklin, which recognized that Atwell is no longer good law and “improperly applied Graham and Miller.” Franklin, 43 Fla. L. Weekly at S557.
Reversed.
2
GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Morgan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- 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)
- Stokes v. State, 271 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)