In the case of State of Florida v. Thomas Kelsey (2016), the Florida Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the precedent established in Graham v. Florida (2010), which prohibited the imposition of life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses, applied retroactively to cases like Kelsey's. Thomas Kelsey had been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment for non-homicide offenses he committed as a juvenile. Following the Graham decision, Kelsey argued that he was entitled to resentencing under the newly established legal standard.

The Florida Supreme Court held that the rule articulated in Graham v. Florida did apply retroactively; however, the Court determined that Kelsey was not eligible for the specific remedy he sought. While acknowledging that Kelsey's original sentence violated the tenets established in Graham, the Court determined that his resentenced term of years, imposed after Graham, remained an appropriate punishment considering the gravity of the offenses committed.

In the 2016 case of Thomas Kelsey v. State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether the precedent set in Graham v. Florida (2010) should be applied retroactively. The Graham decision prohibited sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment for crimes that didn't involve homicide. Thomas Kelsey, who had received a substantial prison sentence for non-homicide offenses he committed as a minor, argued that Graham entitled him to a resentencing.

The Florida Supreme Court concurred that Graham should indeed be applied retroactively. However, they determined that Kelsey was not eligible for the specific form of relief he requested. Although Kelsey's initial sentence was deemed unconstitutional in light of Graham, the court concluded that his subsequently imposed term of years remained a fitting punishment given the gravity of his offenses.

In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court heard a case, Thomas Kelsey v. State of Florida, about whether a big legal change for young offenders applied to older cases. The change came from a 2010 case, Graham v. Florida, where the Court decided that sentencing juveniles (people under 18) to life in prison for non-homicide crimes (crimes where no one was killed) was unconstitutional.

Thomas Kelsey had received a very long sentence as a juvenile for offenses where nobody died. After the Graham decision, he argued that his punishment should be reevaluated under these new rules. The Court agreed that the Graham decision should apply to past cases like Kelsey's. However, even though Kelsey's original sentence was deemed unconstitutional because of Graham, the Court found that his resentenced term of years (meaning he wasn't sentenced to life anymore) was still justified given how serious his crimes were.

In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court looked at the case of Thomas Kelsey. They needed to decide if a rule from a different case, Graham v. Florida (2010), changed things for Kelsey. The Graham rule said minors who committed crimes could not receive a life sentence in jail without parole (unless they killed someone). Kelsey was a kid when he committed some serious crimes, but no one was killed. He received a very long sentence for these crimes. After the Graham rule, Kelsey said his sentence was unfair.

The Court decided the Graham rule did apply to old cases like Kelsey's, but that Kelsey's current sentence was still fair. Even though his original sentence had been too long (according to the Graham rule), the Court said his new, shorter sentence was fair because his crimes were so serious.