Henry v. State
Decision Date | 19 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. SC12–578.,SC12–578. |
Parties | Leighdon HENRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Peter D. Webster of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; and David L. Luck, and Christopher Bryan Corts of Carlton Fields, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Kellie Anne Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, and Wesley Harold Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, FL, for Respondent.
Bryan Scott Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Marsha L. Levick, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, PA; and George E. Schulz, Jr., of Holland & Knight, Jacksonville, FL, for Amicus Curiae Juvenile Law Center.
Angela Coin Vigil of Baker & McKenzie LLP, Miami, FL, for Amici Curiae Former Members of Judiciary, Former Prosecutors and Bar Leaders.
We have for review the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Henry v. State, 82 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), holding that Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), does not apply to term-of-years prison sentences because such sentences do not constitute life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Because we find that Graham does apply and that the sentence at issue will not provide a meaningful opportunity for release, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing consistent with our rationale provided below.
When he was seventeen years old, Leighdon Henry was tried as an adult and convicted for committing multiple nonhomicide offenses, including three counts of sexual battery while possessing a weapon, two counts of robbery, one count of kidnapping, one count of carjacking, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and one count of possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Henry to life for the sexual battery offenses, plus an additional sixty years' imprisonment for the remaining offenses, to run consecutively. Henry was thus sentenced to life plus sixty years' imprisonment. Henry appealed.
During the pendency of Henry's appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued its Graham decision. Thereafter, Henry filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) predicated on the Graham holding. The trial court granted the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, in part, and resentenced Henry to concurrent thirty-year sentences for the sexual batteries; the remaining sentences were to run consecutively. Henry was thus sentenced to ninety years' imprisonment. The Fifth District affirmed Henry's convictions and revised sentences, concluding that “Henry's aggregate term-of-years sentence is not invalid under the Eighth Amendment....” Henry, 82 So.3d at 1089.
The review of a decision of a district court of appeal construing a provision of the state or federal constitution concerns a pure question of law that is subject to de novo review. Crist v. Fla. Ass'n of Criminal Def. Lawyers, Inc.,
In Graham, the Supreme Court conducted a thorough examination of the constitutional requirements for states that subject juvenile nonhomicide offenders to terms of life imprisonment as if these offenders had been adults when they committed their offenses. After careful consideration of the overall issue, the Graham Court concluded and repeatedly emphasized that because of their immaturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, juveniles are more vulnerable or negatively influenced by external forces than are adults. Graham, 560 U.S. at 67–68, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ). The Supreme Court further determined that juveniles constitute a category of offenders that are not as capable of engaging in conduct that is as “morally reprehensible” as adults and, therefore, cannot be reliably “classified among the worst offenders.” Id. at 68 (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 569, 125 S.Ct. 1183 ; Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 835, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988) (plurality opinion)). In addition, the Supreme Court held that juveniles possess a greater potential for change or positive character growth than adults. Id. (citing Roper, 543 U.S. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183 ).
Building upon its prior precedent that explicitly emphasized the special status of juvenile offenders for purposes of criminal punishment, in Miller v. Alabama, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the Supreme Court stated in no uncertain terms that it is the offenders' juvenile status that implicates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2464 ( ; Id. at 2465 () ; Id. at 2469 () ; Id. at 2466 () .
The Court concluded that the status of juvenile offenders warrants different considerations by the states whenever such offenders face criminal punishment as if they are adults. See, e.g., Roper, 543 U.S. at 553, 125 S.Ct. 1183 () ; Id. at 561, 125 S.Ct. 1183 () .
Emphasizing the distinction between juveniles and adults, the Court explained:
Roper established that because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less deserving of the most severe punishments. 543 U.S. at 569 . As compared to adults, juveniles have a “ ‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’ ”; they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure”; and their characters are “not as well formed.” Id. at 569–570 . These salient characteristics mean that “[i]t is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id. at 573 . Accordingly, “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders.” Id. at 569 . A juvenile is not absolved of responsibility for his actions, but his transgression “is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson, [487 U.S.] at 835 (plurality opinion).
Graham, 560 U.S. at 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011. Then, the Court stated that compared to the sentence of death, a sentence of life without parole is “the second most severe penalty permitted by law.” Id. at 69, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). Therefore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the status of the juvenile...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Contreras
...see also Budder v. Addison (10th Cir. 2017) 851 F.3d 1047, 1059 ; Moore v. Biter (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1184, 1192 ; Henry v. State (Fla. 2015) 175 So.3d 675, 679–680, State v. Boston (Nev. 2015) 363 P.3d 453, 458–459.) Like a sentence explicitly imposed as "life without parole," an aggre......
-
Carter v. State
...life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment." (Emphasis added). In Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675, 679 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida held that the Eighth Amendment "requires a juvenile nonhomicide offender . . . to be afforded" a......
-
Commonwealth v. Foust
..., 317 Conn. 52, 115 A.3d 1031, 1047 (2015), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1364, 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) ; Henry v. State , 175 So.3d 675, 679 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1455, 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016). Courts should not circumvent the prohibition on LWOP sent......
-
McCullough v. State
...crimes when the sentences are the functional equivalent of LWOP. See People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012); Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1455 (2016); Gridine v. State, 175 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2015); Kelsey v. State, 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. ......
-
Evolving the Standard of Decency: How the Eighth Amendment Reduces the Prosecution of Children as Adults
...N.E.3d 884 (Ill. 2016) (consecutive sentences totaling 97 years constituted de facto life sentence implicating Miller); Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015) (aggregate sentence of 90 years violates Graham); Willbanks v. Dep’t of Corr., 522 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. 2017) (multiple fixed-term con......