Tampa, Fla. (NewsRadio WFLA) – As Florida’s Supreme Court gains new conservative justices appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis, a slow reversal of a court process allowing some adults serving life sentences after being sentenced while they were juveniles is already underway for some defendants.
A handful of cases involving defendants who were convicted of first-degree murder, armed sexual battery, armed robbery and other violent felonies when they were under the age of 18 but sentenced to life under Florida’s parole guidelines before 1994, which have since been phased out.
Under those guidelines where someone was eligible for parole in certain cases after 25 years, the state’s high court justices say that is enough to satisfy tougher United States Supreme Court standards that allowed these juvenile defendants to have a new hearing on their life sentences, in the hopes of gaining a reduced sentence.In some cases that has led to immediate release from prison or within a few years.
For others, a so-called “term of years” sentence has been re-imposed that equals a life sentence without technically re-sentencing the defendant to life in prison.
The shift in opinion began with the 2016 ruling involving a Broward county teen, Angelo Atwell, who was sentenced to life in prison for an August 1990 murder and armed robbery.While setting the new standard based on the antiquated parole system, it still granted a re-sentencing for Atwell under the legislative fix for juveniles passed in 2014.
However, in 2018, the court reversed course on Atwell’s second chance in two cases, agreeing that the parole guidelines dictate in these pre-1994 cases, the Court now says that a re-sentencing should not have been allowed in Atwell’s case or any similar cases.
How this shift in opinion evolved to essentially set up a new cutoff for juvenile resentencing requires a brief understanding of how imposing life sentences for those under 18 years old has evolved since 2005.
THE SHIFTING STANDARD ON SENTENCING JUVENILES
Three key court battles ruled on by the United States Supreme Court have set the stage for where Florida, and every other state, has ended up when it tackles the controversial issue of balancing a juvenile’s potential immaturity level when a crime was committed and the violent, and often vicious, nature of the crime.
In 2005, the Court outlawed the death penalty for defendants under the age of 18 years old for first-degree murder, and in some states, capital sexual battery, or capital rape, which usually involved a victim under a certain age.
The basis for the Court’s decision centered around a violation of the 8 th Amendment of the United States Constitution that prohibits “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.”
Five years later in Graham v. State of Florida , the Supreme Court heard the case of a juvenile co-defendant who pleaded guilty in a 2003 robbery at a Jacksonville barbecue restaurant. Graham originally was sentenced to probation on an Armed Burglary charge.
When Graham violated his probation, he was later given a life sentence, the maximum sentence under Florida law.
The Court reversed Graham’s sentence and eliminated automatic or mandatory life sentences for non-homicide offenses, like robbery and burglary. Instead, the Court drew a line in the sand between murder cases as opposed to other cases that expose juveniles to life sentences, recognizing that facts and circumstances should drive sentencing decisions, not an automatic blanket rule. The Justices again relied on the 8 th Amendment as the basis of their decision.
In 2012, the Supreme Court took juvenile sentencing reform one step forward by eliminating automatic, mandatory life sentences for first degree murder in the Miller v. Alabama case. Instead, the Court required that judges should consider a range of issues including how the crime was committed, any underlying psychological or social issues that impacted the juvenile defendant’s mental capacity, and whether the defendant was remorseful.
Florida changed it’s sentencing laws in 2014 following the Miller decision, creating new criteria to be considered by a judge at a hearing following a juvenile defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder. The legislature created the following list for the defense attorneys and prosecutors to argue before a judge:
- The nature and circumstances of the offense committed by the defendant.
- The effect of the crime on the victim’s family and on the community.
- The defendant’s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and mental and emotional health at the time of the offense.
- The defendant’s background, including his or her family, home, and community environment.
- The effect, if any, of immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences on the defendant’s participation in the offense.
- The extent of the defendant’s participation in the offense.
- The effect, if any, of familial pressure or peer pressure on the defendant’s actions.
- The nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history.
- The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment.
- The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.
Source: Florida Statute 921.1401
Judges were free to consider any of these factors to not impose a life sentence, instead imposing a 40-year sentence as a minimum, with a review process to be initiated 25 years in to a sentence to see if the, now adult, juvenile offender could still be rehabilitated.
What the Miller case nor the new Florida sentencing law did was declare that these new standards would apply to cases before 2014.In 2015, the Supreme Court decided that it should apply for juvenile defendants convicted between 1994 and 2014, the time cutoff now being followed by the Florida Supreme Court in the cases now being decided based on the old parole guidelines.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PRE-1994 CASES?
Going back to Mr. Atwell’s case as previously noted, the justices on Florida’s Supreme Court decided that based on the United States Supreme Court cases, Atwell should get a new sentencing hearing based on the 2014 change in Florida’s law, while still saying that the parole guidelines technically apply.
They went on to take a deep dive into another key part of Florida’s Administrative law that governs a separate set of guidelines that calculate someone’s release date if they are subject to parole.
For Mr. Atwell, that calculation had his release date for the year 2130 since he received two life sentences.
Additionally, under their analysis, the pre-1994 parole system does not fall under their jurisdiction, despite a federal court challenge on the issue of felon voting rights that would its way to the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals where a judge declared how the state’s parole board handles cases unconstitutional when it comes to the restoration of civil rights.
Fast forward to 2018 and the 1,000-year sentence of then-17-year-old Arthur Franklin, who pleaded guilty in 1984 for several charges that carried life sentences including armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery.
Yes, 1,000-year sentence.
Using yet another 2017 United States Supreme Court case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the ultimate decision in Mr. Atwell’s case was wrong (allowing a resentencing hearing) and that parole cases allow for the opportunity, but not the guarantee, of release from prison for juvenile offenders sentenced to life.
Franklin’s calculated possible release date was reported as 2352 according to the opinion.
The Florida Supreme Court issued another opinion in 2018 referring to the very same parole system to justify its new opinion to not allow these resentencing hearings, called the pre-1994 guidelines as the “state’s geriatric release program.”
That case involved 16-year-old Budry Michel who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for charges stemming from a 1991 murder, armed robbery and kidnapping in South Florida.
Since Michel was eligible for parole after 25 years, the justices once again ordered that the Michel’s life sentence was not eligible for review in the courts, but instead was under the control of the parole commission.
In both the Franklin and Michel cases the justices also ruled that the life sentences were not “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8 th Amendment since they were subject to parole.
While some reports show that dozens of then-juvenile offenders convicted between 1994 and 2014 have enjoyed the benefit of this “legal evolution,” the prison doors may once again be closing for those defendants, and their attorneys, hoping for a second chance if they were convicted before 1994.
The judges considering Mr. Atwell’s case had one hint of advice to re-open those doors: repeal the pre-1994 parole guidelines.
Whether or not legislators will take on the challenge, remains to be seen in 2019.
TIMELINE OF KEY CASES IN JUVENILE SENTENCING
2005 – Roper v. Simmons (U.S. Supreme Court)
Eliminated Death Penalty for defendants convicted of 1 st Degree Murder who are under age 18. 8 th Amendment – Cruel / Unusual Punishment
2010 – Graham v. State of Florida (U.S. Supreme Court)
Eliminated automatic/mandatory life sentences juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses (e.g. Robbery w/ Firearm). Judge *may impose life sentence after hearing. However, life sentences repeatedly struck down to where judges imposed a “term of years” (e.g. 50 yrs., 75 yrs.). 8 th Amendment – Cruel / Unusual Punishment
2012 – Miller v. Alabama (U.S. Supreme Court)
Eliminated mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders (under age 18) convicted of 1 st Degree Murder. 8 th Amendment – Cruel / Unusual Punishment
2014 – Florida Statute 921.1401 Enacted
Creates new sentencing criteria for juveniles convicted of 1 st Degree murder. Hearing required. State Attorney must disprove each mitigating factor presented by defense
2015 – Falcon v. State of Florida (U.S. Supreme Court)
Made Miller decision retroactive in Florida. Created flood of resentencing hearings for juvenile 1 st Degree Murder defendants between 1994 – 2014
2016– Atwell v. State of Florida (FL Supreme Court)
Considers pre-1994 parole eligibility in allowing parole as justification for denying resentencing on 1 st Degree Murder conviction. Originally says Atwell was granted a parole hearing in 2015. However, ultimately decided that Graham/ Miller still apply and should get another hearing. Later reversed in 2018.
2018 – Franklin v. State of Florida (FL Supreme Court)
1,000 YEAR SENTENCE. Rules he had eligibility for parole and did NOT require new sentencing. Convicted of Sexual battery, Armed Robbery. Rape Examiner – worst case they have ever seen. RELEASE DATE SET FOR 2352. Sentenced under Pre-1994 Parole Guidelines therefore no re-sentencing required.
2018 – Michel v. State of Florida (FL Supreme Court)
Ruled once again that sentences handed down under the pre-1994 “life with possibility of parole after 25 years” did not require a re-sentencing under US Supreme Court cases