Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder for crimes he committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Atwell v. State, the defendant, Mr. Croft, appealed his sentence. The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced in light of current case law regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. On procedural grounds, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida held that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Croft should be resentenced again.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder for crimes he committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Atwell v. State, the defendant, Mr. Croft, appealed his sentence. The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced in light of current case law regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. On procedural grounds, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida held that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Croft should be resentenced again.
Summary
This case involved a defendant convicted of murder for crimes committed as a juvenile and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. The defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that it violated recent Supreme Court rulings regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. The postconviction court agreed and ordered the defendant be resentenced. However, the District Court of Appeal reversed this decision, asserting that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that the defendant should be resentenced again.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder for crimes he committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Atwell v. State, the defendant, Mr. Croft, appealed his sentence. The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced in light of current case law regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. On procedural grounds, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida held that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Croft should be resentenced again.
Summary
This case focuses on the sentencing of a defendant, Mr. Croft, who was convicted of murder as a juvenile. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
Following the landmark rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Atwell v. State, Mr. Croft appealed his sentence. These cases all addressed the issue of mandatory life sentences for juveniles, holding that they were unconstitutional.
The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced. However, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida reversed this decision, arguing that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to modify the original sentence. This ruling meant that Mr. Croft would have to be resentenced once again.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder for crimes he committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Atwell v. State, the defendant, Mr. Croft, appealed his sentence. The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced in light of current case law regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. On procedural grounds, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida held that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Croft should be resentenced again.
Summary
This case involves a man named Mr. Croft who was convicted of murder at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in several cases that life sentences for juveniles were unconstitutional, Mr. Croft appealed his sentence. The court agreed and ordered him to be resentenced.
However, a different court later ruled that the original court did not have the authority to order the resentencing. Therefore, Mr. Croft will have to be resentenced again.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder for crimes he committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida's decision in Atwell v. State, the defendant, Mr. Croft, appealed his sentence. The postconviction court agreed with Mr. Croft and ordered that he be resentenced in light of current case law regarding juvenile offenders and sentencing. On procedural grounds, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in Florida held that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction and that Mr. Croft should be resentenced again.
Summary
Mr. Croft was found guilty of murder when he was 17 years old. He was sentenced to life in prison with a chance of getting out after 25 years.
But some laws about young people who commit crimes changed. So, Mr. Croft asked the court to change his sentence.
The court agreed and told Mr. Croft to get a new sentence.
But another court said the first court wasn’t supposed to do that. So, Mr. Croft will have to get another new sentence.