Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age may be punished by a term of imprisonment for life or by a term of years equal to life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...The trial court denied the motion on the basis that it had been directed by the Fifth District to make the finding. After a hearing, the trial court found that Williams both actually killed and intended to kill Brookins. The court subsequently held a resentencing hearing on the first-degree murder conviction pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016), and again sentenced Williams to life imprisonment, but with a sentence review in twenty-five years, as required by section 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2016)....

...782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age may be punished by a term of imprisonment for life or by a term of years equal to life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...that case, which was decided a mere two years ago. Because Atwell was granted resentencing by this Court, he is now entitled to a new sentencing hearing where his youth and other factors are required to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. See § 921.1401, Fla....

...2014) (observing that this Court has, “prior to any directly applicable 5. I would strongly urge the Legislature to look at the implications of the plurality’s decision to determine whether amendments are warranted to chapter 2014-220, sections 2-3, Laws of Florida. See §§ 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla....

...3D16-1090, 2017 WL 1018513, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 15, 2017) (“Notwithstanding the fact that he will be reevaluated for the possibility of parole in 2022, we conclude the defendant is correct and that he is entitled to resentencing under sections 775.082(3)(c) and 921.1401.”); Miller v....

...ears after the commission of first-degree murder is irrelevant.”). We do so here, too. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Reid’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand for a resentencing pursuant to section 921.1401. Reid v....

...Specifically, I would not reject Atwell and would instead hold that Atwell, which faithfully interpreted the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, requires that all juvenile offenders sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years be resentenced pursuant to section 921.1401 regardless of a presumptive parole release date, if one has been set....

...a defendant to any term between the lowest permissible sentence and the statutory maximum. Furthermore, in response to Graham and Miller, the Florida Legislature adopted chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, of the Florida Statutes....

...nile offender and for judicial review of certain sentences imposed upon juveniles who commit capital, life, or first-degree felonies punishable by life. The record reflects that Hall was provided with an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401, during which the trial court took into account Hall’s age and the factors listed in section 921.1401(2) when imposing a sentence that was less than life in prison but well beyond the 369.15-month lowest permissible sentence....

*82 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See § 921.1401, Fla. Stat. (2015). Finding no abuse of discretion

...decision to impose a life sentence and to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended sentencing documents. Because Barnes was a juvenile at the time he committed these offenses, the trial court conducted an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016)....

...He also raises three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We reverse the appeal as to the claim asserting unconstitutionality of the life sentence and remand for the trial court to resentence Appellant pursuant to the individualized factors under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, which must be considered when sentencing a juvenile, as explained in Landrum v....

...We reverse as to appellant’s first issue and hold that the trial court erred in failing to order a presentence investigation (“PSI”) before resentencing him to life in prison. We affirm as to all other issues raised, but write to address appellant’s argument that section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, violates the Sixth Amendment. PSI Issue We first address appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in resentencing him without first obtaining a PSI. The legality of a criminal sentence is reviewed de novo....

...of the relevant sentencing factors. Thus, it cannot be said that the error was harmless. 3  Sixth Amendment Issue For the trial court’s benefit on remand, we also address appellant’s argument that section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, violates the Sixth Amendment by allowing the trial court, rather than a jury, to make the finding as to whether life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence for a juvenile offender under the relevant sentencing factors....

...Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Florida’s juvenile sentencing procedure requires a trial court to conduct an individualized sentencing hearing to determine if life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence for a juvenile convicted of a capital felony. §§ 775.082, 921.1401, Fla. Stat. (2017). In determining whether life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence, the court must consider factors relevant to the offense and offender, including various enumerated statutory factors. § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). 4  Both the First District and the Third District have held that Florida’s juvenile sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401 does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and its progeny. See, e.g., Simmons v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D659, D659 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 7, 2019); Copeland v. State, 240 So. 3d 58, 59–60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77, 94–97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Our sister courts reasoned that section 921.1401 does not alter the statutory maximum or minimum that may be imposed on a juvenile offender; nor does it make the imposition of a life sentence contingent on any particular finding of fact. Simmons, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D659; Beckman, 230 So. 3d at 96. The statutory factors in section 921.1401 are not elements that enhance the prescribed penalty, but rather “are merely sentencing factors which the trial judge may take into consideration when exercising his discretion to impose a sentence within the range prescribed by statute and ensure proportionality.” Simmons, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D659. We reject appellant’s attempt to analogize section 921.1401 to Florida’s pre-Hurst death-penalty statute. The procedure in section 921.1401 is distinguishable from Florida’s pre-Hurst death-penalty statute, as the latter statute unconstitutionally required the sentencing judge to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance that was necessary for the imposition of the death penalty....

...at 624 (“Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional.”). We find Beckman and Simmons to be persuasive and adopt their reasoning as our own. Section 921.1401 does nothing more than require a trial judge to take into consideration traditional sentencing factors— relating both to offense and offender—in imposing a sentence within the range prescribed by statute. Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401 does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi. Conclusion In sum, we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand with instructions for the trial court to order a PSI before resentencing appellant....

...at 2469. Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in OUTLINED IN SECTIONS 775.082, 921.1401, AND 921.1402 FLORIDA STATUTES (2014), TO JUVENILES CONVICTED OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER AND SENTENCED TO A NON- MANDATORY SENTENCE OF LIFE IN PRISON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHAPTER 2014-220, LAWS OF FLORIDA? Landrum, 163 So. 3d at 1263-64. -2- Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...at sentence at the statutorily mandated period of twenty-five years. See § 921.1402(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). We therefore quash the Second District’s decision and remand this case for resentencing in conformance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes, and disapprove Lightsey v....

...For those offenders in this category who “did not actually kill, intend to kill, or attempt to kill,” the subsequent judicial review is available for a sentence of more than fifteen years. Id. at 404 (internal citations omitted). See §§ 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Fla....

...(2014). Unlike the statute Landrum was sentenced under—which did not provide for, or much less suggest, factors a sentencing court should consider relating to the juvenile offender’s youth and its attendant characteristics as described in Miller— Section 921.1401 provides for the appropriate sentencing factors a trial court must consider that are “relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances” when determining if a juvenile offender should be sentenced...

...nal history. - 15 -  (i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment. (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...One of those factors is “Whether the juvenile offender’s age, maturity, and psychological development at the time of the offense affected his or her behavior.” § 921.1402(6)(f), Fla. Stat. (2014). None of the Miller factors as now codified in section 921.1401 existed in the sentencing scheme under which Landrum was sentenced, and the sentencing court’s discretion to impose a life sentence was without restriction....

...Therefore, the exercise of a sentencing court’s discretion when sentencing juvenile offenders must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now provided for in section 921.1401....

...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), - 20 - 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)....

...This sentencing legislation was “designed to bring Florida’s juvenile sentencing statutes into compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s recent Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing jurisprudence.” Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 39; §§ 775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla....

...3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Starks v. - 24 - State, 128 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion. We remand for resentencing in accordance with sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statues (2014). It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and PERRY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., concurs in result. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMIN...

...Thus, pursuant to Graham , a juvenile could not constitutionally receive a life sentence for a non-homi-eide offense at the time of Treacy . In 2014, however, the Florida Legislature enacted new statutes for sentencing juveniles convicted as adults. Ch. 2014-220, Laws of Fla. Pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016), a trial court may sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment for a non-homicide offense after considering various factors....

...�s actions. (h) The nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history. (i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment. (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...He argues that Treaey has not been abrogated by the change in sentencing law and that, although a life sentence is possible and might ultimately be imposed, this does not mean that he can be held without bond. He argues that, although the legislature enacted sections 921.1401 and 921.1402 to satisfy the requirements of Graham, Treaey remains valid law because he cannot be sentenced to life without a full sentencing hearing. He notes that the court made no findings that he could be sentenced to life as authorized by section 921.1401....

...Conclusion Petitioner has not shown error in the trial court’s conclusion that he is not entitled to bond under Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution. To deny bond, the trial court was not required to find that a life sentence is likely under section 921.1401....

...Taylor, Damoorgian and Gerber, JJ., concur. . State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980). . Petitioner has not taken issue with the deni- . al of bond on the other two counts, which are not offenses punishable by life. . A defendant's youth and the other factors in section 921.1401 are matters that a trial court may consider when exercising its discretion to grant bond....

court and arguments on the factors set forth in § 921.1401(2). After weighing the factors, the court determined

...We disagree with Mr. Dortch’s argument that our prior mandate in Dortch v. State, 137 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) entitled him to be sentenced to concurrent terms of 40 years incarceration. We also conclude that the trial court made the findings required by section 921.1401, Florida Statutes before imposing life sentences. I. Mr....

...remanded. Id. at 1177-78. On remand, Mr. Dortch asked the trial court to simply make his sentence in the other 92-4605 case concurrent with his 40-year sentences. But the court chose instead to fully resentence him under the framework established in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes....

...of the robbery counts, to run concurrent with his sentence in the 92-4605 case. This appeal followed. II. A. Mr. Dortch contends first that the court’s imposition of life sentences pursuant section 921.1401 exceeded the scope of the mandate in Dortch, 137 So....

...(citing State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 1983)). The State is also correct that by the time of Mr. Dortch’s second resentencing, the decisional law provided for re-sentencing pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida (which is codified in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes)....

...under the new law’s provisions, the State could “again seek life imprisonment with judicial review.” Id. Jeopardy did not attach to Mr. Dortch’s 40-year sentences because they were illegal under Kelsey and Lee. As such, the imposition of a life sentence pursuant to section 921.1401 was not error and did not violate double jeopardy principles. B. Mr. Dortch next contends that the trial court erred in declining to make specific findings regarding the factors enumerated in section 921.1401(2) ∗ and implemented via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.781(c). ∗ Section 921.1401(2), Fla....

...prior criminal history. 4  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.” These findings are all that the statute and rule require. Section 921.1401(2) sets forth no requirement to make detailed findings on all ten of its factors....

...The rule doesn’t say, for (i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment. (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. 5 instance, that trial courts must make findings as to each of the ten § 921.1401(2) factors, in addition to whatever other factors they review and consider, in pronouncing a sentence. And so, in this case, the trial court conducted an adequate resentencing hearing....

..."Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court's exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender's 'youth and its attendant circumstances' as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014)." Landrum v....

...3d 459, 460 (Fla. 2016) (citing Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 399). Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellant's 100-year sentence violates Miller and its progeny. See Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675, 679-80 (Fla. 2015) (reversing 1 Now codified in §§ 775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla....

...authorized to serve process at the witness’s residence if one attempt to serve the subpoena has failed.” New rule 3.781 (Sentencing Hearing to Consider the Imposition of a Life Sentence for Juvenile Offenders) derives from the enactment of section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, which was created by chapter 2014-220, section 2, Laws of Florida, and went into effect on July 1, 2014. As enacted, section 921.1401 allows the trial court to conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine if life imprisonment, or a term of years equal to life imprisonment, is the appropriate sentence for a juvenile convicted of an offense described in sect...

...tencing any juvenile offender whose sentence is determined to be unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).” Consistent with section 921.1401, and modified from the CPRC’s proposal, rule 3.781 applies to crimes committed under the specified statutes “on or after July 1, 2014.” The Court adopts new rule 3.802 (Review of Sentences for Juvenile Offenders), which derives from the enactment of section 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...be held pursuant to rules 3.720 and 3.721. The sentencing court shall allow the state and defendant to present evidence relevant to the offense, the defendant’s youth, and attendant circumstances, including, but not limited to those enumerated in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes....

...denying the motion, indicates that the court considered the factors outlined under section 921.1402. Instead, the defendant argues, the trial court’s written order appears to indicate that the court merely relied on its evaluation of the factors outlined under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016), when the court resentenced the defendant two years earlier. In response, the state argues that the defendant failed to preserve this argument by not having brought this argument to the trial court’s attention after the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written order....

...Procedural History In 2016, the defendant, who as a juvenile had been convicted of first- degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole in 2003, filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2015), and section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2015). Section 921.1401 states, in pertinent part: (2) In determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence, the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the...

...(h) The nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history. (i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant's judgment. (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. Pursuant to section 921.1401, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and entered a written order resentencing the defendant to twenty- eight years in prison. In the written order, the trial court recited section 921.1401 as quoted above, and then expressly addressed each factor one- by-one as applied to the evidence presented. 2  Two years later, the defendant filed a “Motion for Review of Sentence Pursuan...

...tors by number or name, the court entitled its order as an “Order on Motion for Review of Sentence.” The court’s order then stated, in pertinent part: Defendant [] had a resentencing hearing in 2016 pursuant to Florida Statutes 921.1401....

...credit for the time he had previously served. In this Court’s [resentencing] Order (Attached as Exhibit A) . . . the relevant 4  resentencing factors delineated under Florida Statutes 921.1401 were extensively analyzed and examined....

...t this time. After the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the defendant did not object or seek to clarify whether the court based its denial on its consideration of the section 921.1402 factors, or merely relied on its earlier evaluation of the section 921.1401 factors....

...Similarly, after the court entered its written order, the defendant did not file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) or 3.850(a)(1) motion seeking to clarify whether the trial court based its denial on its consideration of the section 921.1402 factors, or merely relied on its earlier evaluation of the section 921.1401 factors. Instead, the defendant filed this appeal....

...The defendant argues that neither the trial court’s oral pronouncement nor the trial court’s written order indicates that the court considered the section 921.1402 factors. Instead, the defendant argues, the trial court’s written order, incorporating the earlier 921.1401 resentencing order, appears to indicate that the court merely relied on its earlier evaluation of the section 921.1401 factors. In response, the state argues that the defendant failed to preserve this argument by not having brought this argument to the trial court’s attention after the trial court’s oral pronouncement and written order....

...preserved. After the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the defendant did not object or seek to clarify whether the trial court based its denial on its consideration of the section 921.1402 factors, or merely relied on its earlier evaluation of the section 921.1401 factors....

...Similarly, after the court entered its written order, the defendant did not file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion seeking to clarify whether the trial court based its denial on its consideration of the section 921.1402 factors, or merely relied on its earlier evaluation of the section 921.1401 factors....

...3d 535, 546 (Fla. 2010)). We further affirm Hodgson’s resentencing. Any comments by the trial court regarding the factors for sentencing a juvenile offender to a life sentence were harmless because Hodgson was neither sentenced to life imprisonment nor a term of years equal to life imprisonment. § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...The date is significant because Ejak's sentence was imposed after the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama 1—which held that it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile convicted of homicide to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole—but before the Florida Legislature enacted section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (2014), to bring Florida's sentencing scheme in line with Miller....

...Ejak filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error citing Horsley and arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the procedures outlined in chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which are codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...The trial court granted the motion in part. As required by section 775.082(1)(b)(3), it made a written finding that Ejak was eligible for a sentence review hearing under section 921.1402(2)(a). However, it denied the motion to the extent it requested a new sentencing hearing under section 921.1401(2)....

...The trial court recognized Miller required individualized consideration, and it conducted a sentencing hearing specifically intended to comport with the requirements of Miller. Its sentencing order addressed the factors spelled out in Miller, which were later incorporated into section 921.1401(2)....

...the statutory factors; however, a review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the trial court's sentencing order show otherwise. The trial court's order fully and carefully set out its findings, and we conclude it addressed all the factors described in section 921.1401(2), to the extent each of those factors was applicable....

...At sentencing, Ejak—unlike Horsley—received the individual consideration required by Miller. Thus, his life sentence was not unconstitutional under Miller, and absent an unconstitutional sentence under Miller, he was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing under section 921.1401(2)....

...depending on the offense), discharges a firearm (minimum of twenty years), or discharges a firearm and as the result of the discharge, inflicts death or great bodily harm (minimum of twenty-five years). Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and the subsequent codification of section 921.1401 of the Florida Statutes, Appellant was resentenced to fifty years on the second degree murder with a firearm count and to thirty years on the attempted second degree murder with a firearm count....

...e differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” 567 U.S. at 480. In response to Graham and Miller, the Florida Legislature adopted chapter 2014–220, Laws of Florida, which is primarily codified in sections 921.1401 and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes....

...These laws outline the factors a court must take into account when considering whether a juvenile offender should be sentenced to life and provide a review mechanism for certain sentences imposed upon juveniles who commit capital, life, or first degree felonies. §§ 921.1401−.1402, Fla....

...(2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since provided that all juvenile offenders who were given life sentences (whether discretionary or mandatory, homicide or not) without consideration of the factors enumerated in Graham and Miller are entitled to be resentenced pursuant to sections 921.1401−.1402 of the Florida Statutes....

...at a young age.” Id. at 209−10. The court also rejected the same “individual considerations” argument raised by Appellant here, holding that it was without merit because the juvenile received an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401(1) wherein the court considered whether a “term of life imprisonment” was an appropriate sentence....

...Val and Young establish that a sentence with a non-life minimum mandatory imposed against a juvenile offender facing a potential life sentence does not violate Graham or Miller so long as the juvenile was afforded an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401 and is later afforded periodic judicial review of his or her sentence as provided in section 921.1402....

...subject to a life sentence. Rather, the law merely requires the sentencing court to consider the offender’s individual circumstances when determining “whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence.” § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). 4  Here, the trial court considered the propriety of imposing a life sentence against Appellant at a section 921.1401 hearing wherein Appellant presented individualized evidence “relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances.” Based on its consideration of this evidence and the relevant factors, the...

...We hold that this inquiry satisfied Miller’s and Landrum’s “individualized circumstances” mandates regardless of the minimum mandatory imposed under the 10-20-Life statute and, therefore, affirm Appellant’s sentence. 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 § 775.087(2)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). We find merit in only one of the issues raised in this appeal and affirm Brown's conviction without further comment. We also conclude that the trial court conducted an appropriate sentencing hearing in accordance with section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and thus affirm the trial court's decision to sentence Brown to forty years' prison. See, e.g., Young v....

... reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age may be punished by a term of imprisonment for life or by a term of years equal to life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...have found [Manago] actually killed the victim.” In other words, the trial court determined that Manago was eligible for resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)1. because it reviewed its own Alleyne violation and found it harmless. After considering “all of [the section 921.1401] factors,” the court imposed a life sentence for Manago’s first-degree murder conviction and a concurrent thirty years for his carjacking conviction. Manago appealed, and the Fifth District vacated his sentence. The cour...

...that case, which was decided a mere two years ago. Because Atwell was granted resentencing by this Court, he is now entitled to a new sentencing hearing where his youth and other factors are required to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. See § 921.1401, Fla....

...2014) (observing that this Court has, “prior to any directly applicable 5. I would strongly urge the Legislature to look at the implications of the plurality’s decision to determine whether amendments are warranted to chapter 2014-220, sections 2-3, Laws of Florida. See §§ 921.1401, 921.1402, Fla....

...3D16-1090, 2017 WL 1018513, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 15, 2017) (“Notwithstanding the fact that he will be reevaluated for the possibility of parole in 2022, we conclude the defendant is correct and that he is entitled to resentencing under sections 775.082(3)(c) and 921.1401.”); Miller v....

...ears after the commission of first-degree murder is irrelevant.”). We do so here, too. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Reid’s motion for post-conviction relief and remand for a resentencing pursuant to section 921.1401. Reid v....

...Specifically, I would not reject Atwell and would instead hold that Atwell, which faithfully interpreted the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, requires that all juvenile offenders sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years be resentenced pursuant to section 921.1401 regardless of a presumptive parole release date, if one has been set....

and remand for a resentencing pursuant to section 921.1401 of the Florida Statutes. On March 20

...Nobles, Judge. May 28, 2025 OSTERHAUS, C.J. James Patrick Bonifay appeals his resentencing on the homicide and other crimes that he committed as a juvenile. He argues that the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court under §§ 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes, constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence....

...In turn, the Florida Supreme Court effectively declared Florida’s prior life sentencing scheme unconstitutional as to juvenile offenders. See Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016), abrogated by Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018). And the Florida Legislature enacted §§ 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes, to provide juvenile offenders with individualized sentencing consideration consistent with Miller....

...exercising discretion and imposing a life sentence without parole on a juvenile homicide offender so long as the defendant’s youth was considered at sentencing. Id. at 479–80. In response to Graham and Miller, the Florida Legislature amended Florida law by passing §§ 921.1401 and 921.1402....

...life sentence is appropriate for juvenile offenders, as well as established a review process for longer-term sentences wherein 3 juvenile offenders could demonstrate their rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society. §§ 921.1401–.1402, Fla....

...punishment because he cannot avoid serving at least forty years even if he is rehabilitated and considered fit to reenter society. In support of his argument Appellant cites the Second District’s decision in Mack v. State. In that case, the court sentenced Elijah Mack under § 921.1401 to concurrent life sentences for murder and burglary convictions as well as to a consecutive life sentence for a sexual battery conviction....

...Supreme Court only required discretionary, individualized sentencing as a condition to life without parole sentencing. Thus, here, because the trial court engaged in Miller-consistent, individualized sentencing of Appellant’s homicide crime under § 921.1401, the structure of his various sentences and reviews does not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Finally, we reject Appellant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion at sentencing by finding against him on the issue of remorse....

...00(a) motion seeking resentencing pursuant to Graham, Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015), and Kelsey v. State, 206 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 2016). Appellant argued that the trial court must reconsider his sentence in light of the factors enumerated in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (enacted as part of chapter 2014-220). The trial court set the case for resentencing....

...ome meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” 560 U.S. at 75. In response to Graham, the Florida Legislature enacted chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. Chapter 2014-220 requires that juvenile offenders who commit offenses after July 1, 2014 receive a review hearing and an opportunity for early release after serving 15, 20, or 25 years depending on the crime...

...The trial court sentenced Hernandez to life without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder and to a consecutive term of thirty years for attempted first-degree murder.” Hernandez I, 117 So. 3d at 779. 1 Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, amending section 775.082, Florida Statutes, and adding new sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. 2  In his appeal from the convictions and sentences, Hernandez challenged his sentence for the first-degree murder as violative of the United States and Florida...

...juvenile sentences that are found to be unconstitutional under Miller, even if the crime was committed before the effective date of the new statutes. Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393, 403-405 (Fla. 2015). 3 section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), the factors required to be considered under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller: 921.1401....

...time of the resentencing, tape recorded calls of conversations by Hernandez with family members and a friend, and testimony by Hernandez himself. Following the hearing, the trial court entered the 27-page amended sentencing order with detailed findings on the factors specified in section 921.1401. The horrific circumstances of the murder, attempted murder, and Hernandez’s premeditation are recounted in Hernandez I and need not be repeated here....

...Unpreserved issues raised here but not in the trial court are reviewed for fundamental error. § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); Jean-Baptiste v. State, 155 So. 6 3d 1237, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). The trial court’s findings of fact on the statutory factors listed in section 921.1401 are reviewed for the existence of competent, substantial evidence in the record. III....

...466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), collectively require that a jury weigh and determine the evidence regarding the sentencing factors in section 921.1401, rather than a judge alone....

...3d 599 (Fla. 2009), and Sexton v. State, 775 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2000). Hernandez properly concedes that this issue was not preserved below and is reviewed for fundamental error. Cromartie v. State, 70 So. 3d 559, 563-64 (Fla. 2011). Subparagraphs 921.1401(2) (a) and (b) of the juvenile resentencing statute direct the trial court to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense committed,” and the “effect of the crime on the victim’s family and on the community.” Additiona...

...music and lyrics replicating the horrific murder and attempted murder he committed were directly relevant to his lack of remorse, his indifference to the suffering of the victims and their families, and Hernandez’s prospects for rehabilitation. § 921.1401 (b), (j)....

...considerations and fails to recognize that juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform. Young also raises a second argument, not presented to the trial court, that Florida’s juvenile sentencing statutes, codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014), “supersede” the provisions of section 775.087(2), that require the imposition of the ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence in this case....

...sentence that he received in this case for committing the crime of possession of a firearm by a person found to have committed a delinquent act. 2 statutes to comply with both cases. Notably, while section 921.1401 requires that the trial court consider certain designated factors relevant to the offense and to the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances in determining whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of yea...

...le’s age. 132 S. Ct. at 2460, 2466-67. Young was adjudicated guilty of a crime for which he faced a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment. Because Young was a juvenile offender, he was entitled to a separate sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401(1) to determine if 3 Graham specifically recognized that juvenile offenders could remain imprisoned for life, but held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited states from determining at the outset that these offenders will never be fit to re-enter society....

...Morris was convicted of one count of attempted felony murder and one count of attempted armed robbery. At the sentencing hearing, where Morris sought a downward departure and youthful offender sentence, the court weighed several factors that the 2014 amendments to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, now require, including the gravity of the offense and its impact on the victim's health and livelihood, Morris's home life and failure to cooperate with his mother, Morris's continuous gang involvement and the peer...

...ithout the possibility of parole for all juveniles convicted of homicide likewise violates the Eighth Amendment. In response to Graham and Miller, the Florida Legislature adopted chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...3d 393, 395 (Fla. 2015). Section 775.082(1)(b)1 states that a juvenile convicted of "actually kill[ing]" a victim shall be sentenced to life in prison if the sentencing court deems such a sentence appropriate after conducting a hearing in accordance with section 921.1401, which describes eleven factors a court must consider before sentencing a juvenile to life....

...we noted, however, that upon remand, the decisional law at the time of resentencing would apply and that "Mr. Garner may still receive the same sentence upon resentencing." Id. at 485. Mr. Garner's resentencing hearing was conducted on December 2, 2021, pursuant to section 921.1401, with the resentencing court considering the eleven factors described therein....

...On March 4, 2022, the court resentenced Mr. Garner to consecutive life sentences, each with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years. The sentences were ordered nunc pro tunc to April 6, 1994. Notably, although the resentencing hearing was conducted pursuant to section 921.1401, Mr....

...Similarly, this case is not in conflict with Hegwood v. State, 308 So. 3d 647, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), in which the Fourth District considered the case of a juvenile who committed three murders in 1987 and, after a supreme court remand for resentencing under sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, was resentenced to life in prison with a twenty- five-year minimum for each of the murders....

...with a review hearing to be conducted in accordance with sections 775.082 (1)(b)1. and 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Simmons now challenges that sentence. Simmons first argues the trial court erred in several of its findings on the statutory factors set forth in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes....

...e 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. As to Simmons’ second issue on appeal, this Court has previously rejected the argument that a jury, rather than the trial court, must determine whether a life sentence is appropriate under the statutory factors in section 921.1401. See Gonzalez v. State, 252 So. 3d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Roberson v. State, 247 So. 3d 718, 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Copeland v. State, 240 So. 3d 58, 59-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The statutory factors in section 921.1401 do not alter the maximum, or minimum, punishment available for juvenile offenders....

...The Williams decision does not affect the prior holdings of this Court. In Williams, a jury convicted the juvenile defendant of first-degree murder, without specifying whether it was premeditated or felony murder, or both. Id. at 283. Under the 2 section 921.1401, such a finding entitled the defendant to a sentence review in twenty-five years....

...convicting Simmons of killing the victim based on the action of another. As the jury made the requisite finding in this case, the minimum floor has been set, and the trial court must procced to determine whether a life sentence is appropriate under section 921.1401. The trial court issued a detailed sentencing order discussing the statutory factors....

...48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and their Florida progeny. Francois argued that because the sentence imposed was for crimes committed when he was a juvenile, he is entitled to have his sentenced reviewed pursuant to sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2017)....

...6, 2018). Affirmed. 1 On October 4, 2018, Hart filed a Notice of Mootness with the Florida Supreme Court while his case was pending. In the Notice, Hart acknowledged that the remedy he had sought was a resentencing pursuant to Graham, among others, and pursuant to section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (2017) (enacted as part of chapter 2014-220)....

...Code scoresheet but argued that the trial court could consider them in determining whether a life sentence was appropriate. Id. The sentencing hearing in Barnes, however, concerned a crime the defendant committed as a juvenile and was therefore governed by section 921.1401, Florida Statutes....

...aced.” Id. at 218. While the court acknowledged “that, under the Criminal Punishment Code, a trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense,” citing Norvil, the court noted that section 921.1401(2) 10 allowed a trial court to consider the “possibility of rehabilitation in determining whether to impose a life sentence.” Barnes, 227 So....

...1982))). Here, the trial court also deemed Norvil distinguishable because Ducas had been convicted of the subsequent offenses, rather than simply arrested without a conviction as in Norvil. Instead, the trial court relied on Barnes, concluding that the fact that Ducas was not a juvenile and section 921.1401 was not a consideration did not require a different outcome because rehabilitation was still a relevant consideration when sentencing an adult. See § 921.002(1)(b), Fla....

...After the Supreme Court ruled that such a sentence is unconstitutional, see Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), in 2015 the trial court granted a new sentencing hearing to determine if a life sentence is appropriate under the new individualized sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014).1 See Falcon v....

...sentence under section 775.082(1)(b)(1), which provides for a forty-year minimum sentence with review after twenty-five years if the trial court finds that the juvenile had 1In 2014, the legislature responded to Miller by amending section 775.082 and enacting sections 921.1401 and 921.1402....

...felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...opportunity for early release, under sections 775.082(1)(b)(1) and 921.1402(2).3 The Miller holding does not extend to Bailey's sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.082(1)(b)(1), where he received the individualized sentencing hearing required by Miller (codified in section 921.1401(1)) and where he will receive a review of his sentence after twenty-five years....

...serve a minimum of thirty-four years. Nonetheless, the juvenile offender would be entitled to a judicial review and possible release in twenty-five years. -6- hearing pursuant to section 921.1401 and is later afforded periodic judicial review of his or her sentence as provided in section 921.1402"); Montgomery v....

...constitutional). Last, Bailey argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the record does not reflect that the trial court considered the statutory factors set forth for individualized sentencing of a juvenile under section 921.1401(2)(a) through (j)....

...Such a finding shall be based upon whether the person actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim." See Cutts v. State, 225 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that trial court erred in failing to make written findings that are required by section 775.082(1)(b)(3)). Section 921.1401(2), on the other hand, states that the trial court shall consider factors (a) through (j) in determining whether a life sentence is appropriate, but it does not require the trial court to make specific findings regarding those factors....

...The legislature cured the Miller problem by adopting a sentencing scheme that no longer mandates life in prison for juveniles. Further, it is clear from the trial court's statements that the trial court considered the factors: Florida statute 921.1401 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors for the sentencing court to take into consideration in determining whether a life sentence is appropriate....

...and listened carefully to counsel and the witnesses as they addressed those today. .... I'm mindful of these factors. The trial court specifically referenced two factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, see § 921.1401(2)(a), and the defendant's prior criminal history, see § 921.1401(2)(h), before stating that "life imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence -8- based upon consideration of those factors." The trial court complied with the mandates of section 921.1401 and Miller. For these reasons, we affirm Bailey's amended sentence. Affirmed. BADALAMENTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. -9- 

and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). See § 921.1401, Fla. Stat.; see also Horsley v. State, 160 So

...This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. See Singletary v. State, 789 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Since his original sentencing, the law on juvenile sentencing evolved, and in 2020, Singletary moved for postconviction relief and requested a resentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2021); Graham v....

...n concurrently, with the entitlement to judicial review after 25 years pursuant to section 921.1402(2)(a), (b), Florida Statutes (2021). Singletary timely appealed. “The trial court’s findings of fact on the statutory factors listed in section 921.1401 are reviewed for the existence of competent, substantial evidence in the record.” Hernandez v....

section 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes and section 921.1401, Florida Statutes. Reversed and remanded

...ding that “the court shall consider any factor it deems appropriate, including any of the following. . . .”) (emphasis added); Dortch v. State, 266 So. 3d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (in conducting a sentencing hearing pursuant to related section 921.1401, Florida Statutes—which provides a list of enumerated factors for a trial court to consider in “determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence” and providing th...

...The court sentenced Robinson to life in prison with judicial review after twenty-five years. Robinson now argues that the sentence was illegal. To the extent Robinson argues the trial court was obligated to make specific findings as to each factor under section 921.1401-Florida's juvenile life-sentencing statute-his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Dortch v. State , 266 So.3d 1240 , 2019 WL 639221 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15th, 2019). In Dortch , we held that judges imposing life sentences need not make specific findings for each factor listed in section 921.1401....

...idered' all relevant factors prior to imposing a life sentence." Id. ; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.781(c). In Robinson's case, the court clearly reviewed and considered the relevant factors, including the likelihood of Robinson's rehabilitation. See § 921.1401(2)(j)....

...The court sentenced Robinson to life in prison with judicial review after twenty-five years. Robinson now argues that the sentence was illegal. To the extent Robinson argues the trial court was obligated to make specific findings as to each factor under section 921.1401-Florida's juvenile life-sentencing statute-his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Dortch v. State , 266 So.3d 1240 , 2019 WL 639221 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 15th, 2019). In Dortch , we held that judges imposing life sentences need not make specific findings for each factor listed in section 921.1401....

...idered' all relevant factors prior to imposing a life sentence." Id. ; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.781(c). In Robinson's case, the court clearly reviewed and considered the relevant factors, including the likelihood of Robinson's rehabilitation. See § 921.1401(2)(j)....

sentencing considered the factors set out in section 921.1401(2) in deciding whether to sentence Appellant

...This appeal stems from a mandatory resentencing of appellant required by Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). The trial court vacated appellant's life sentences and resentenced him to life in prison in accordance with section 921.1401, Florida Statutes....

...Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (I) whether the trial court erred in weighing and failing to weigh several factors *719 before resentencing appellant to life in prison; (II) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's request for a jury finding under section 921.1401 ; and (III) whether section 921.1401 is facially unconstitutional. We determine appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in considering the factors in section 921.1401 and affirm as to Issue I without further discussion. As to Issues II and III, appellant complains that section 921.1401 requires the judge, not the jury, to consider certain factors in determining whether to impose a life sentence....

...616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ). Appellant thus argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury to make findings as to the sentencing factors set forth in section 921.1401....

...Court ruled that such a sentence is unconstitutional, see Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), in 2015 the trial court granted a new sentencing hearing to determine if a life sentence is appropriate under the new individualized sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014).1 See Falcon v....

...ection 775.087, Florida Statutes (2007).2 Bailey raises several challenges to his sentence; we affirm for the reasons explained below. 1In 2014, the legislature responded to Miller by amending section 775.082 and enacting sections 921.1401 and 921.1402....

...felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...percent of -7- Miller holding does not extend to Bailey's sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.082(1)(b)(1), where he received the individualized sentencing hearing required by Miller (codified in section 921.1401(1)) and where he will receive a review of his sentence after twenty-five years....

...10-20-Life statute is unconstitutional; "a sentence with a non-life minimum mandatory imposed against a juvenile offender facing a potential life sentence does not violate . . . Miller so long as the juvenile was afforded an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401 and is later afforded periodic judicial review of his or her sentence as provided in section 921.1402"); Montgomery v....

...constitutional). Last, Bailey argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the record does not reflect that the trial court considered the statutory factors set forth for individualized sentencing of a juvenile under section 921.1401(2)(a) through the sentence imposed, would require the juvenile offender to serve a minimum of thirty-four years....

...Such a finding shall be based upon whether the person actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim." See Cutts v. State, 225 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that trial court erred in failing to make written findings that are required by section 775.082(1)(b)(3)). Section 921.1401(2), on the other hand, states that the trial court shall consider factors (a) through (j) in determining whether a life sentence is appropriate, but it does not require the trial court to make specific findings regarding those factors....

...The legislature cured the Miller problem by adopting a sentencing scheme that no longer mandates life in prison for juveniles. -9-  Further, it is clear from the trial court's statements that the trial court considered the factors: Florida statute 921.1401 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors for the sentencing court to take into consideration in determining whether a life sentence is appropriate....

...and listened carefully to counsel and the witnesses as they addressed those today. .... I'm mindful of these factors. The trial court specifically referenced two factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, see § 921.1401(2)(a), and the defendant's prior criminal history, see § 921.1401(2)(h), before stating that "life imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence based upon consideration of those factors." The trial court complied with the mandates of section 921.1401 and Miller. For these reasons, we affirm Bailey's amended sentence. Affirmed. BADALAMENTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. - 10 - 

...arged or convicted of a lesser offense if not for the incompeten- *269 cies of youth, and the circumstances of the particular offense. . Among other things, chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, requires an individualized sentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), even when the trial court is considering a life sentence that is not mandated but is available pursuant to a sentencing reclassification....

...v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge. June 12, 2019 WETHERELL, J. After a hearing under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, the appellant, Shawn David Jackson, was resentenced to life in prison for what the trial court described as “an especially heinous, atrocious and cruel murder.” On appeal, Jackson argues that (1) the trial cour...

...by 15 years in prison for the sexual battery. In 2016, Jackson filed a rule 3.800(a) motion in which he argued that his life sentence was illegal under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The trial court granted the motion and held a resentencing hearing pursuant to section 921.1401....

...State, 190 So. 3d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), and we review the court’s ultimate sentencing decision based on these findings for an abuse of discretion. See Simmons v. State, 2019 WL 1065396, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 7, 2019) (explaining that the factors in section 921.1401(2) are not elements of the offense but rather are sentencing factors for the court to consider “when exercising its discretion” to impose a life or term- of-years sentence). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth...

...Jackson does not challenge that sentence on appeal. 4 Court explained that “a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles.” Id. at 489. In response to Miller, the Legislature enacted section 921.1401. The statute requires the trial court to “consider factors relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances” when determining whether a life sentence is appropriate for a juvenile murderer. § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...The statute lists ten non-exclusive factors the court must consider in making its determination, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s family background, maturity level, intellectual capacity, mental health issues, and potential for rehabilitation. § 921.1401(2)(a)-(j), Fla. Stat. Here, although not required to do so, 4 the trial court made detailed findings on each of the factors in section 921.1401(2)....

...15, 2019). 5 demonstrated by his relatively clean disciplinary record and involvement in self-betterment activities while in prison. We find this argument unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the hearing below was solely a resentencing hearing under section 921.1401, not a sentence review hearing under section 921.1402. 5 Second, it is the responsibility of the trial court (not this court) to determine the weight to be given to the factors in section 921.1401(2). Third, although the defendant’s rehabilitation is the sole focus of a sentence review hearing under section 921.1402, it is only one of the many factors that the court is to consider in a sentencing hearing under section 921.1401....

...s violations of the Florida and federal constitutions’ prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. See Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const.; Amend. VIII, U.S. Const. The trial court conducted an individualized sentencing and considered the factors under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, which was added to address the prohibition set forth in Miller v....

...o Falcon v. State, 162 So. 3d 954, 963-64 (Fla. 2015). He contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In formulating his sentence, the trial court made express findings in accordance with section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016), and we affirm. We remand, however, for the trial court to reduce to writing its reasons for the sentence. Appellant Kevin Cutts was charged by indictment with first degree murder and armed burglary with assault....

...The court conducted a full hearing, at which multiple witnesses testified on behalf of appellant. Appellant testified to his rehabilitation in prison. He also expressed remorse and apologized to the victim’s family. After hearing the evidence, the court vacated the prior sentences, restated the criteria of section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, and made findings on those criteria....

...Pearson, 836 N.W.2d 88 (Iowa 2013). In Pearson, the Iowa court held that a thirty-five year sentence without the possibility of parole violated the “core teachings of Miller.” Id. at 96. The Florida Legislature, however, developed in sections 921.1401- .1402, Florida Statutes, a different method of dealing with sentencing juveniles for serious crimes....

...illegal sentence, which the trial court denied and which we now review de novo. Issues and Analysis Jay asserts that pursuant the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller, and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell, he is entitled to resentencing under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016)....

...Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010) (“The Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.”). The court considered the juvenile individualized sentencing factors set forth in § 921.1401, Fla....

...th Amendment is violated where a defendant is not eligible for resentencing on one count because of parole eligibility but has been otherwise shown to be rehabilitated after a sentencing hearing on non-parole eligible counts pursuant to Fla.Stat. 921.1401.” 2 We write to explain why Boucher is not entitled to relief pursuant to Purdy. In Purdy, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether a trial court is required to review the aggregate sentence of a juvenile offender at a sentence review hearing....

...Based on its finding of rehabilitation, the court in Purdy reduced the sentence under review to time served and 10 years of probation. Here, by contrast, the lower court did not conduct sentence review of any of Boucher’s sentences pursuant to § 921.1402. Instead, the court resentenced Boucher pursuant to § 921.1401. In Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393, 401 (Fla. 2015), our Supreme Court explained the difference between these two statutes: [Section 921.1401] sets forth the procedures for the mandatory individualized sentencing hearing that is now required before sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment; and [section 921.1402] relates to subsequent judicial review of a juvenile offender’s sentence. Because Boucher had originally been sentenced to life in prison for his nonhomicide offenses, the trial court was required to consider the factors set forth in § 921.1401 to determine if a life sentence was appropriate....

...imprisonment if the trial court, after considering the specified factors during an individualized sentencing hearing, determines that a life sentence is appropriate.”). 7  Importantly, the factors set forth in § 921.1401 differ from those in § 921.1402....

...Unlike in Purdy, the sentencing court here did not find that Boucher had been rehabilitated and was fit to reenter society, which is a factor relevant to sentence review pursuant to § 921.1402(7). Instead, the court correctly considered the factors set forth in § 921.1401 and found that there was a “possibility of rehabilitating the Defendant.” See § 921.1401(2) (“In determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence, the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances, including, but not limited to . . . (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.”). 4 4 In Bellay v. State, 277 So. 3d 605, 608–09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) our Sister District explained the distinction between the rehabilitation factors set forth in §§ 921.1401 and 921.1402 as follows: The question as to whether a juvenile has in fact been rehabilitated comes from section 921.1402(7), which applies to subsequent judicial review of a sentence....

...Thus, Appellant’s argument, made in the context of the resentencing process, lacks merit. For resentencing, Appellant’s “performance in prison” was one part of the equation in considering element (j), “[t]he possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.” § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat....

...assee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. FORST, J. Appellant Brooks Bellay appeals his life sentence, imposed following a resentencing hearing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2017)....

...pleading guilty to second-degree murder. Per the “open plea,” the determination of the sentence was left to the trial court; it sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. 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....

...parole should only be imposed on juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility and irreparable corruption. The trial court’s order next detailed its consideration of “all” of the sentencing factors set forth in section 921.1401....

...offenders, the Florida Legislature adopted a new juvenile offender sentencing scheme in chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida (effective for offenses committed by a juvenile offender after July 1, 2014). The new sentencing provisions are codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes. See Nelms, 263 So. 3d at 89. Specifically, section 775.082 was amended to provide the statutory penalties for juvenile offenders; section 921.1401 was created to set forth procedures for individualized sentencing hearings to determine whether a juvenile offender should be sentenced to life imprisonment; and section 921.1402 was created to allow for subsequent judicial review of a juvenile offender’s sentence. Horsley, 160 So. 3d at 401. Section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes, provides that when determining if a juvenile offender should be sentenced to life imprisonment, “the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the [juvenile offender’s] youth and attendant cir...

...(h) The nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history. (i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment. (j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant. § 921.1401(2)....

...Thus, Appellant’s argument, made in the context of the resentencing process, lacks merit. For resentencing, Appellant’s “performance in prison” was one part of the equation in considering element (j), “[t]he possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.” § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...not make the life sentence unconstitutional. Appellant will be entitled to present evidence of the full extent of his rehabilitation in prison at a sentence review hearing. We note, however, that in addressing “the possibility of rehabilitating the defendant” pursuant to section 921.1401(2)(j), the trial court appears to have made findings as to whether Appellant has demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation while incarcerated, pursuant to section 921.1402(6)(a). Specifically, the resentencing order states that “[t]...

...years not exceeding life, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age may be punished by a term of years equal to life imprisonment if the judge conducts a sentencing hearing in accordance with s. 921.1401 and finds that a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. § 775.082(3)(b)2., Fla....

...individualized sentencing hearing at which it heard witness testimony and applied the Supreme Court's rulings in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). After expressly considering the factors outlined in Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, the court resentenced Blake to life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction. Because Blake received the individualized sentencing hearing discussed in Horsley v....

...Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J.  Appellant, Jonathan Sawyer, challenges a life sentence imposed following an individualized resentencing hearing ordered pursuant to Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2022)....

...For resentencing, [a]ppellant’s ‘performance in prison’ was one part of the equation in considering . . . ‘[t]he 2 possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.’” (emphasis in original) (quoting § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat.)); Calabrese v. State, 325 So. 3d 938, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“Rehabilitation is not the sole focus of section 921.1401. Rather, it is one of the statutory factors to be considered at sentencing . . . . In contrast to section 921.1401, evidence of rehabilitation and the juvenile's maturation play a much greater role in the subsequent sentence review hearing held pursuant to section 921.1402.”)....

...etuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences on the defendant's participation in the offense[,]” and “[t]he effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant's youth on the defendant's judgment[,]” as required by section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes....

...“The decision to accept or reject expert testimony is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Beach Cmty. Bank v. First Brownsville Co., 85 So. 3d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Defendant’s 2019 resentencing occurred pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014). Section 921.1401 contains certain factors that a trial court “shall consider” “[i]n determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence” for a juvenile offender. § 921.1401(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). In making its determination under the factors listed in section 921.1401(2), the trial court considered, and ultimately rejected, the testimony of three expert witnesses called by Defendant. “The circuit court has discretion to accept or reject expert testimony.” Franqui v....

... Miller appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2015 order denying his 3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...new statutes. 2  We therefore reverse Miller’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015). Reversed and remanded with directions. 3 

...defense witnesses regarding Nelms’ rehabilitation in prison. At the end of the hearing, the court resentenced Nelms to life in prison, with judicial review after twenty-five years, pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, as codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes....

...sentencing hearing as a matter of law. Id. After granting the defendant a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Miller, the trial court held a hearing wherein it considered witnesses’ testimony on the defendant’s behalf, the defendant’s remorse, and the criteria set out in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, before imposing the new sentence of life in prison with review after twenty-five years....

...On appeal, the defendant argued that his new sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 244. We disagreed and affirmed the new sentence, noting that the trial court had made express findings in accordance with section 921.1401....

...at 244– 3 45. Similarly, we affirm Nelms’ life sentence with review after twenty-five years, which was imposed upon resentencing. Here, in addition to considering witnesses’ testimony and Nelms’ remorse, the resentencing court considered the criteria set forth in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, made express findings, and reduced those findings to writing in its resentencing order, as required by section 775.082(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes. We further note that Nelms’ reliance on Atwell is misplaced....

...ing or at the subsequent review hearing whether Appellant was also entitled to be resentenced on his previously imposed consecutive sentences for the armed robbery and armed carjacking. The court, after considering the factors set forth in section 921.1401(2)(a)–(j), Florida Statutes (2015), resentenced Appellant to serve forty years in prison for the murder conviction, with appropriate jail credit and prison credit awarded, but did not separately provide for a sentence review hearing in this new sentence....

...3d 393, 395–96 (Fla. 2015), the court held that a juvenile offender whose earlier sentence was found to be unconstitutional should be resentenced in light of the juvenile sentencing legislation enacted by the Legislature in 2014, now codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401–.1402, Florida Statutes (2015). 4Based on the court’s factual findings at the resentencing hearing, Appellant, having already served more than twenty years of his prison sentence, was entitled to a review hearing....

...his sentences for robbery and carjacking despite being found rehabilitated and fit to reenter society, is illegal. The trial court denied the motion. 5 the 2014 juvenile sentencing laws now codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402 of the Florida Statutes....

...must run concurrently with each other. However, I disagree with the majority view that, pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015), Appellant is entitled to a sentence review on counts two and three. When Appellant was resentenced pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2015), to serve forty years in prison on his conviction for first-degree felony murder, his sentence was no longer unconstitutional under Miller v....

...utes establishing both the procedure for sentencing persons convicted of specified offenses committed while they were juveniles and the procedure for judicial review of such sentences. Ch. 2014-220, § 1 (amending section 775.082), § 2 (creating section 921.1401), § 3 (creating section 921.1402), at 2869-75, Laws of Fla. -2-  Thereafter, in Landrum v....

...State, 192 So. 3d 459, 469 (Fla. 2016), the Florida Supreme Court held that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for second-degree murder committed by a juvenile was unconstitutional under Miller and required resentencing pursuant to section 921.1401....

...The defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found the defendant guilty of all charges. The defendant was seventeen when he committed the crimes and twenty-one when he was convicted and sentenced. The trial court considered each factor enumerated in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2017), in sentencing the defendant. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for each charge, specifically ordering his two life sentences for attempted murder (counts II and I...

...d on Warthen; (2) Hegwood does not compel an affirmance; and (3) Purdy intentionally left open the question which his appeal now presents. The 4 State responds the Florida Legislature enacted sections 775.082,3 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2017), “[i]n direct response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller and Graham,” and the cases cited by the defendant are inapplicable....

...James Morgan, Raiford, pro se, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. WARNER, J. Appellant challenges his life sentence imposed pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes....

...Amendment. At the time of his motion, the Florida Supreme Court had extended Miller to juvenile life sentences even with the possibility of parole in Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). 2 Appellant requested sentencing pursuant to sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...uant to these newly enacted statutes. In that motion, he acknowledged that Florida no longer had a parole system other than the one which was currently available under his present sentence. He conceded that “if the court resentences me pursuant to section 921.1401, that this can and may affect my current parole status in the Department of Corrections.” Further, he recognized “that it may forever preclude me for seeking parole at any time in the future.” Resentencing at this time could af...

...The appellant acknowledged that he understood. The court resentenced appellant to life in prison with the required judicial review pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes. On appeal, appellant claims that the court erred in sentencing him pursuant to section 921.1401, because the statute does not apply to his crime committed in 1977, and it would violate the ex post facto clause of the Florida and Federal Constitutions....

...Therefore, based upon the May analysis, there was no disadvantage created by application of the new sentencing scheme, because appellant was never entitled to release through parole. Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), appellant also contends that the sentencing factors under section 921.1401 must be made by a jury and not the court. We have already decided this issue and have held that section 921.1401 does not violate Apprendi, because the statute does not alter the statutory maximum nor does the court sentence outside of the sentencing range prescribed by the statute when considering the statutory factors....

...correct illegal sentence, requesting a resentencing hearing. The State conceded Appellant’s entitlement to resentencing, and the matter proceeded to a resentencing hearing in 2019. At the resentencing hearing, the trial court pronounced its requisite findings under section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (2019), holding that Appellant’s conduct “indicate[d] the transient immaturity of youth more persuasively than irreparable corruption.” Without the benefit of a scoresheet, the trial court sentenced Appella...

...sentence longer than twenty years, are entitled to judicial review. We therefore hold that all juveniles who have sentences that violate Graham are entitled to resentencing pursuant to chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). See also Young v. State, 219 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We thus reverse the trial court’s order and appellee’s sentence. In his answer brief, appellee contends that section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, requiring individualized sentencing consideration for juveniles and periodic reviews, supersedes section 775.087, requiring mandatory minimum penalties....

775.082(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section 921

...Miller appeals the trial court’s September 16, 2015 order denying his 3.850(b)(2) motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...30, 2016), Miller is entitled to judicial review of his sentence. We therefore reverse Miller’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to the trial court for the appropriate resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2015). Reversed and remanded with directions. 2 

...pursuant to rules 3.720 and 3.721. The sentencing court shall allow the state and defendantthe juvenile offender to present evidence relevant to the offense, the defendantjuvenile offender’s youth, and attendant circumstances, including, but not limited to those enumerated in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the court shall allow the state and the defendantjuvenile offender to present evidence relevant to whether or not the defendantjuvenile offender killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the v...

...4th DCA 2015). The State makes two arguments against reversing Lacue’s sentence. The State argues first, that this error is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, and second, that the error is harmless because the trial court considered similar sentencing factors pursuant to section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (2015)....

...murder through the resentencing process. Many statements urged the court to impose the maximum sentence, not to reduce the life sentence, or to ensure that Serrano is never released. Following the evidentiary hearing, the court analyzed the factors specified in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and concluded that a life sentence remained appropriate for the murder conviction....

...at his constitutional rights to a jury trial required the circuit court to empanel a jury for his resentencing. He contends that allowing a judge, rather than a jury, to determine whether a life sentence is appropriate under the statutory factors in section 921.1401 violates Apprendi v....

...hat the sentencing court violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment when it weighed the wishes of the victim’s family and friends in deciding whether to sentence Serrano to life in prison. By way of background, section 921.1401(2) of the juvenile sentencing statute directs the court to consider ten non- exhaustive factors “relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances” when determining whether life is an appropriate sentence for a juvenile homicide offender. One of the designated factors is “[t]he effect of the crime on the victim’s family and the community.” § 921.1401(2)(b), Fla....

...We address each argument in turn. A. Serrano’s Prior Criminal History As part of its determination about whether a life sentence is appropriate, the sentencing court must consider “[t]he nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history.” § 921.1401(2)(h), Fla....

...the court’s duty to make an independent judgment regarding the sentence it imposed. In fact, the record shows that the court was thoroughly familiar with the background and circumstances of the case, heard evidence and argument from both sides, and analyzed the sentencing factors of section 921.1401, providing detailed reasons why it was imposing a life sentence....

...When a court decides on an adult sentence for a juvenile offender, “the chronological age of a minor is itself a relevant mitigating factor of great weight.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 476 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 116 (1982)). To that end, section 921.1401 mandates that a sentencing court consider “factors relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances.” Specifically, the court must consider “[t]he defendant’s age, maturity, intellectual capacit...

...“[t]he effect, if any, of immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences on the defendant’s participation in the offense,” and “[t]he effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment.” § 921.1401(2)(c), (e) & (i), Fla....

...held in accordance with sections 775.082(1)(b)1. and 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2016). Gonzalez now challenges that sentence.  We reject Gonzalez’ argument that a jury, rather than a circuit judge, must pass on the factors set forth in section 921.1401(2)....

...nt constitutes an appropriate sentence for a homicide offense committed by a juvenile. Copeland, 240 So. 3d at 59. Prior to resentencing, the trial court received evidence and substantial argument regarding the sentencing considerations set forth in section 921.1401(2)(a)- (j)....

...roactive to those sentences invalidated by Miller but imposed for offenses committed before the effective date of the new law. Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015). While the State did present some of the relevant criteria for sentencing under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, in Appellant’s prior sentencing hearing, Appellant did not receive the sort of individualized sentencing hearing mandated by Horsley and section 921.1401....

...Reverse Williams rule evidence is evidence offered by the defense pursuant-to .section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes. See Rivera v. *115 State, 561 So.2d 536 (Fla.1990), and State v. Savino, 567 So.2d 892 (Fla.1990). . This law revised section 775.082, Florida Statutes, and added sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes....

...Second, the trial court incorrectly applied the theory of statutory revival when considering possible sentences for Appellant. As discussed above, Florida has adopted a new sentencing scheme for juvenile defendants who commit capital felonies. Codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014), this new legislation provides, in part, that a juvenile defendant who commits a capital felony shall be punished by either a life sentence or by a term of at least forty years....

...In determining if a life sentence is appropriate, the trial court should conduct a hearing, considering “factors relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances,” including the factors enumerated in section 2 921.1401(2)(a)-(j). § 921.1401(2)....

...of one of the crimes listed in that section. As noted earlier, this new sentencing scheme has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court of Florida in Horsley v. State. In this case, the trial court properly considered the factors enumerated in section 921.1401(2)(a)-(j) when determining the appropriate sentence for Appellant....

...In fact, the only capital felonies committed by the Appellant were the ones for which he was being sentenced, which were part of the same “criminal transaction or episode.” For the trial court to consider these crimes as part of Appellant’s “prior criminal history,” as required in section 921.1401(2)(h), was erroneous. Additionally, the trial court mistakenly (in hindsight) believed its options for sentencing were either life without parole or to apply statutory revival and sentence Appellant to life with a mandatory minimum of 25 years....

...The trial court did not mention anything about a weapon in its discussion of the proper sentence. Thus, any error was harmless. By definition, a harmless error cannot be fundamental error, nor can it be prejudicial for purposes of an ineffective assistance claim. The trial court complied with sections 921.1401 and 921.1402, Florida Statutes, in imposing sentence Additional Facts At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor noted that appellant was 16 years old when the crimes occurred and that the sentencing would proceed under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes. The prosecutor also incorrectly argued that the court did not have to consider all of the factors in section 921.1401. Defense counsel contended that the trial court should not sentence appellant to life, as appellant’s actual participation in the crimes was minimal. After hearing evidence and argument, the trial court pronounced sentence as follows: Okay. In reviewing Florida Statute 921.1401, I do find that the nature and circumstances of the offense committed by Mr. - 20 -  Dubon were, in fact, heinous....

...never made a finding that he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim; (2) the trial court did not make a specific finding that life in prison was an appropriate sentence; (3) the trial court failed to address all the required factors in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes; and (4) he was entitled to resentencing because his sentence lacked a review mechanism. The trial court granted in part and denied in part appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. The trial court incorporated the State’s response and stated that the record reflected that the court reviewed section 921.1401, considered all relevant factors, and made the required findings....

...782.04 of a capital felony, or an offense that was reclassified as a capital felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age shall be punished by a term of imprisonment for life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...felony, which was committed before the person attained 18 years of age may be punished by a term of imprisonment for life or by a term of years equal to life if, after a sentencing hearing conducted by the court in accordance with s. 921.1401, the court finds that life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence....

...somehow error, the error was corrected when the trial court made this explicit finding in its order on appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. The record reflects that the trial court reviewed and considered all relevant factors under section 921.1401(2). Third, appellant argues that the trial court failed to address all the required factors in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes. Section 941.1401(2) sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors that the trial court shall consider in determining whether life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence for a juvenile offender. Section 921.1401(2) “states that the trial court shall consider factors (a) through (j) in determining whether a life sentence is appropriate, but it does not require the trial court to make specific findings regarding those factors.” Bailey v....

...ed all relevant factors prior to imposing a life sentence. Although the trial court did not use the magic language “all relevant factors have been reviewed and considered by the court,” the trial court did specifically state that it had reviewed section 921.1401. The trial court then proceeded to make specific findings as to most, but not all, of section 921.1401(2)’s statutory factors. Appellant complains that the trial court “failed to address factors (d), (e), (h), and (i).” However, as the State points out, many of the statutory factors are interrelated, and factors (d), (e), a...

...Furthermore, because there was no evidence that appellant had a prior criminal history, the trial court may have found it unnecessary to specifically discuss factor (h). Finally, the trial court stated in its order on appellant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion that it had reviewed section 921.1401 and considered all relevant factors. The trial court was not required to hold a full resentencing hearing Finally, appellant argues that that because the original sentence lacked a review mechanism, the proper remedy was res...

...220, Laws of Florida,” and where the sentence lacks any review mechanism, the defendant is entitled to resentencing. Morris v. State, 246 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 2018). For example, in a case where the defendant’s sentence for second-degree murder was imposed before the enactment of section 921.1401, the Fifth District held that “it was error for the trial court to amend the sentence to provide for a review hearing without first conducting a resentencing hearing.” Katwaroo v....

...was a ministerial correction for which the defendant did not need to be present. 278 So. 3d at 86. The present case is distinguishable from Morris and Katwaroo. Unlike Morris and Katwaroo, appellant’s sentencing hearing was conducted pursuant to section 921.1401. This case is akin to Puzio, which was a case where the defendant received a resentencing hearing conducted in accordance with section 921.1401; we held that a change to the waiting period for judicial review was a ministerial correction to the sentencing order....

...�s “youth and 3  its attendant characteristics,” including the juvenile’s immaturity, lack of judgment, and possibility of rehabilitation in determining whether to impose a life sentence. § 921.1401(2), Fla....

...to provide a life sentence for a juvenile who commits a capital crime, or a felony enhanced to a capital felony, but it included a review procedure to determine whether such sentence was appropriate under the circumstances and for a further review after twenty-five years. § 921.1401(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Although sections 921.1401 and 921.1402 were enacted in July 2014, in Horsley v....