Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent sentences of life without parole for robberies he committed when he was 14 and 15 years old. He previously appealed and was resentenced to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison, and he appealed this resentencing. He appealed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida where the Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are still sentenced to life in prison must be given a realistic opportunity for release before the end of their sentence. The District Court of Appeal in Florida for the Second Circuit, where this case was heard, held that the trial court met this obligation when it resentenced him to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison because this was a reduction from the original sentences of life in prison.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent sentences of life without parole for robberies he committed when he was 14 and 15 years old. He previously appealed and was resentenced to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison, and he appealed this resentencing. He appealed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida where the Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are still sentenced to life in prison must be given a realistic opportunity for release before the end of their sentence. The District Court of Appeal in Florida for the Second Circuit, where this case was heard, held that the trial court met this obligation when it resentenced him to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison because this was a reduction from the original sentences of life in prison.
Summary
The case involved a defendant convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent life sentences without parole for offenses committed at ages 14 and 15. Following an appeal, the defendant was resentenced to four concurrent 30-year terms. This resentencing was again appealed.
The appeal centered around the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida. This ruling mandates that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are sentenced to life imprisonment must be given a realistic chance for release. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal found that the trial court had met this obligation by reducing the original life sentences to 30-year terms.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent sentences of life without parole for robberies he committed when he was 14 and 15 years old. He previously appealed and was resentenced to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison, and he appealed this resentencing. He appealed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida where the Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are still sentenced to life in prison must be given a realistic opportunity for release before the end of their sentence. The District Court of Appeal in Florida for the Second Circuit, where this case was heard, held that the trial court met this obligation when it resentenced him to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison because this was a reduction from the original sentences of life in prison.
Summary
This case involves a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent life sentences without parole for robberies committed while he was a minor. The defendant appealed his original sentencing, and the court resentenced him to four concurrent 30-year prison terms.
The defendant appealed this resentencing, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida required a realistic opportunity for release. The Graham decision prohibited life sentences without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by juveniles unless a realistic opportunity for release was provided.
The Florida District Court of Appeal determined that the trial court met this obligation by reducing the defendant’s sentences to four concurrent 30-year terms.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent sentences of life without parole for robberies he committed when he was 14 and 15 years old. He previously appealed and was resentenced to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison, and he appealed this resentencing. He appealed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida where the Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are still sentenced to life in prison must be given a realistic opportunity for release before the end of their sentence. The District Court of Appeal in Florida for the Second Circuit, where this case was heard, held that the trial court met this obligation when it resentenced him to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison because this was a reduction from the original sentences of life in prison.
Summary
This case involved a young man who was convicted of robbery with a weapon when he was just 14 and 15 years old. He was sentenced to four life sentences without the possibility of parole. He appealed the decision and was resentenced to four 30-year sentences. He appealed this decision again.
The reason for this second appeal was a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in a case called Graham v. Florida that young people who commit crimes that don't involve murder and are sentenced to life in prison must have a chance to be released at some point. The Florida appeals court decided that the original life sentences were reduced to 30 years, which was enough to satisfy the Supreme Court’s decision.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to four concurrent sentences of life without parole for robberies he committed when he was 14 and 15 years old. He previously appealed and was resentenced to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison, and he appealed this resentencing. He appealed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida where the Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders who commit non-homicide offenses and are still sentenced to life in prison must be given a realistic opportunity for release before the end of their sentence. The District Court of Appeal in Florida for the Second Circuit, where this case was heard, held that the trial court met this obligation when it resentenced him to four concurrent terms of 30 years in prison because this was a reduction from the original sentences of life in prison.
Summary
This case was about a man who was found guilty of robbing people with a weapon. He was sent to prison for the rest of his life, but later the sentence was changed to 30 years in prison for each of the crimes. The man wanted to appeal this decision, but the court said it was okay because he got a shorter sentence.