Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years served. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant filed for postconviction relief. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Miller, a mandatory sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. He further argued that under Atkins, his sentence was unconstitutional because it was virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole under Florida's existing parole system. His motion was granted in 2017, but before the resentencing hearing could take place, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Under this new rule, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District ruled in this case that Mr. Wittemen's sentence was not illegal or unconstitutional.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years served. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant filed for postconviction relief. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Miller, a mandatory sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. He further argued that under Atkins, his sentence was unconstitutional because it was virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole under Florida's existing parole system. His motion was granted in 2017, but before the resentencing hearing could take place, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Under this new rule, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District ruled in this case that Mr. Wittemen's sentence was not illegal or unconstitutional.
Summary
This case involves a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed at age 17, sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 25 years. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant sought postconviction relief. The defendant argued that Miller deemed mandatory life-without-parole sentences unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. Further, citing Atkins, the defendant asserted that the sentence was effectively indistinguishable from a life-without-parole sentence under Florida's parole system.
The defendant's motion was initially granted in 2017. However, before the resentencing hearing occurred, the Florida Supreme Court's 2018 decision in State v. Michel determined that 25-year parole-eligible life sentences for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Based on this new precedent, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant's sentence was neither illegal nor unconstitutional.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years served. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant filed for postconviction relief. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Miller, a mandatory sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. He further argued that under Atkins, his sentence was unconstitutional because it was virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole under Florida's existing parole system. His motion was granted in 2017, but before the resentencing hearing could take place, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Under this new rule, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District ruled in this case that Mr. Wittemen's sentence was not illegal or unconstitutional.
Summary
This case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder at age 17 who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. The defendant sought postconviction relief arguing his sentence was unconstitutional in light of Supreme Court rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State.
The defendant argued that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional according to Miller. He also argued that his sentence was effectively a sentence of life without parole under Florida's parole system, making it unconstitutional under Atkins.
The defendant’s motion was initially granted. However, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently ruled in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District upheld the defendant's original sentence.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years served. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant filed for postconviction relief. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Miller, a mandatory sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. He further argued that under Atkins, his sentence was unconstitutional because it was virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole under Florida's existing parole system. His motion was granted in 2017, but before the resentencing hearing could take place, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Under this new rule, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District ruled in this case that Mr. Wittemen's sentence was not illegal or unconstitutional.
Summary
A 17-year-old was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with a chance for parole after 25 years.
The defendant argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama made his mandatory life sentence unconstitutional because he was a juvenile offender. He also argued that his sentence was like a life sentence without parole based on Florida's parole system.
In 2017, a judge agreed that the defendant's sentence was possibly unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 that life sentences with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juveniles did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Florida court then said the defendant's sentence was legal.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder for crimes committed at age 17 and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years served. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Atwell v. State, the defendant filed for postconviction relief. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Miller, a mandatory sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. He further argued that under Atkins, his sentence was unconstitutional because it was virtually indistinguishable from a sentence of life without parole under Florida's existing parole system. His motion was granted in 2017, but before the resentencing hearing could take place, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in 2018 in State v. Michel that sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years for juvenile offenders did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Under this new rule, the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District ruled in this case that Mr. Wittemen's sentence was not illegal or unconstitutional.
Summary
A man named Mr. Wittemen was put in prison for life when he was 17 years old. He was found guilty of murder. The law said he could get out of prison after 25 years if he behaved well.
Later, some new laws were made about how long people could stay in prison for crimes they did as teenagers. Mr. Wittemen thought these new laws meant he shouldn't have to stay in prison for life.
A judge agreed with Mr. Wittemen and said he could have a new trial to decide how long he would stay in prison. But before the new trial could happen, another judge said that the law about how long people could stay in prison for crimes they did as teenagers was okay. Because of that, Mr. Wittemen is still going to stay in prison for life.