Summary of Argument

The ruling below must be reversed because it both failed to properly consider Lionel’s age and developmental stage as well as violated federal and state constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, separation of powers and the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

At common law, there is a rebuttable presumption that children between ages seven and 14 lack criminal capacity. Lionel should have had the opportunity to address the infancy defense-- which is still viable in Florida in criminal court-- as required by due process. Similarly, the trial judge erred in failing to address, sua sponte, the issue of Lionel’s competence to stand trial. There is every reason to believe that Lionel was not competent to direct his defense, to waive his right to avoid self-incrimination, or to determine whether he should enter a plea.

The Florida transfer scheme violates due process because it fails to afford juveniles a hearing prior to the state attorney divesting the juvenile court of jurisdiction by seeking a grand jury indictment. Equal Protection is violated by the statute’s failure to distinguish between juveniles charged with crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment for the purposes of juvenile or criminal court jurisdiction; provides no criteria to guide prosecutorial discretion in these cases; and denies these juveniles the opportunity to be sentenced as juveniles upon conviction. The statutory scheme also violates principles of separation of powers, by effectively allowing the state attorney to define the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Finally, a sentence of life without parole for a 12-year-old violates cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

The ruling under consideration necessitates reversal due to its failure to adequately consider the defendant's age and developmental stage, thereby contravening fundamental constitutional protections. The ruling is flawed in its application of both federal and state constitutional principles, particularly those concerning due process, equal protection, separation of powers, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The common law presumption of criminal incapacity for children aged seven to fourteen years, while rebuttable, should have been afforded due consideration in this case. The defendant, Lionel, was denied due process by being deprived of the opportunity to present the infancy defense, a viable legal strategy within Florida's criminal justice system. Furthermore, the trial judge's failure to proactively address Lionel's competency to stand trial constitutes a violation of due process. Strong evidence suggests Lionel's lack of competency to adequately direct his defense, assert his right against self-incrimination, or make informed decisions regarding plea entry.

The Florida transfer scheme, as implemented in this case, infringes upon equal protection by failing to provide juveniles with a hearing prior to the state attorney's unilateral decision to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile to criminal court through a grand jury indictment. Additionally, the statute's disregard for differentiation between juveniles accused of crimes carrying potential death or life imprisonment sentences, in terms of jurisdictional determination, creates a discriminatory imbalance. This lack of distinction further exacerbates the equal protection violation by providing no objective criteria for prosecutorial discretion in these high-stakes cases, ultimately denying juveniles the chance to receive a sentence within the juvenile justice system, even upon conviction. The statute's structure also impedes the principle of separation of powers by effectively granting the state attorney the authority to define the jurisdictional boundaries of the juvenile court.

A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, imposed upon a twelve-year-old defendant, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

The ruling should be overturned because it did not adequately consider Lionel’s age and developmental stage and violated various constitutional rights.

Lionel should have been allowed to raise the infancy defense, a legal principle that presumes children between the ages of seven and fourteen lack criminal capacity. The trial court’s failure to address this defense violated Lionel’s right to due process.

The trial judge failed to address the issue of Lionel’s competency to stand trial. Lionel's capacity to direct his defense, avoid self-incrimination, and make decisions about entering a plea should have been evaluated.

The Florida transfer scheme violates due process by not providing juveniles with a hearing before the state attorney can transfer their case to adult court. This scheme allows the state attorney to divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction without giving the juvenile a chance to be heard.

The transfer scheme violates equal protection because it does not differentiate between juveniles charged with crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment, and it does not offer clear criteria for prosecutorial discretion in these cases. As a result, these juveniles are denied the opportunity for juvenile sentencing.

The scheme violates separation of powers by allowing the state attorney to effectively define the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This circumvents the intended balance of authority between the legislative and executive branches.

A sentence of life without parole for a 12-year-old violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

The court ruling needs to be reversed because it ignored Lionel’s age and development, and broke the law.

The law says that kids between 7 and 14 are not automatically guilty of crimes. Lionel should have been able to argue that he wasn’t responsible because he’s young, which is a legal defense. The judge should have also made sure Lionel understood the trial and could help his lawyer.

The way Florida transfers kids to adult court is unfair. Kids aren’t allowed to have a hearing before they’re moved to adult court, and the state attorney gets to decide who goes to adult court. It’s also unfair because kids facing life sentences are treated the same as those with less serious crimes. The law also lets the state attorney decide what the juvenile courts can do, which isn’t how things should work.

Finally, a sentence of life in prison without parole for a 12-year-old is cruel and unusual punishment.

Summary of Argument

The court made a mistake by sending Lionel to adult court. The court didn’t think about how young Lionel is and how he might not understand what’s happening.

The law says that kids between 7 and 14 years old aren’t always responsible for their actions. Lionel should have been able to explain why he shouldn’t be tried as an adult. The court also didn’t make sure Lionel understood what was going on and could help his own lawyer.

Florida’s rules about moving kids to adult court are unfair because they don’t give kids a chance to be heard before they’re sent to adult court. These rules also don’t treat kids the same way, especially kids accused of serious crimes. They let the prosecutor decide where a kid goes to court, which isn’t fair. It’s also wrong to give a 12-year-old a life sentence without the chance to ever get out of prison.