St. Val v. State, 4D11–654.
| Decision Date | 27 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D11–654.,4D11–654. |
| Citation | 107 So.3d 553 |
| Parties | Blanchard ST. VAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Blanchard St. Val, Okeechobee, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm (count one); attempted second-degree murder with a firearm (count two); and shooting into an occupied vehicle (counts three and four). On February 3, 2006, he was sentenced to life imprisonment in count one and fifteen years each in counts two, three, and four, running concurrently. The judgment and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
On September 27, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing that his life sentence in count one violated his constitutional rights in light of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), because he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense. The trial court denied the motion on grounds that it was untimely filed under rule 3.850. Defendant's motion for rehearing was also denied.
In his initial brief, Defendant reasserted the right to relief under Graham. He claimed that Graham, which was decided on May 17, 2010, created a new fundamental constitutional right that was not established within the period for seeking postconviction relief, which excepts the claim from the two-year deadline under the rule. SeeFla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2). We agree with Defendant's position.
In Graham, the Court held that “[t]he constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” 130 S.Ct. at 2034. The record in this case reveals that the conviction for attempted first-degree murder stems from events that occurred on June 7, 2003. Defendant was seventeen years old at that time. The Florida legislature has not enacted a parole system that would satisfy Graham by allowing a juvenile defendant sentenced to life in prison a chance to be released. See Treacy v. Lamberti, 80 So.3d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Therefore, Defendant's life sentence for a non-homicide offense, committed while he was a minor, constitutes a constitutional violation pursuant to Graham. See Cunningham v. State, 74 So.3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Manuel v. State, 48 So.3d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
In Kleppinger v. State, 81 So.3d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the Second District found that Graham should be applied retroactively. See also Geter v. State, –––– So.3d –––– (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); In re Sparks, 657 F.3d 258, 260 (5th Cir.2011) (). As a result, the trial court could have considered Defendant's rule 3.850 motion under section (b)(2), which provides an exception to the two-year filing deadline when a claim alleges that the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided, has been held to apply retroactively, and is made within two years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing retroactivity. Alternatively, the trial court could have considered the claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which entitles a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotto v. State
...all offenders—regardless of when the punishment was imposed. Thus, we have held that Graham applies retroactively. St. Val v. State, 107 So.3d 553, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). The second strand of precedent is not as clear. This strand involves cases that “prohibited mandatory imposition of ca......
-
Peterson v. State
...Miller in terms of the analysis required for retroactivity, Williams, ––– So.3d at ––––, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D508 ; St. Val v. State, 107 So.3d 553, 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), and expressly join these courts in concluding that Graham is to be applied retroactively.9 Therefore, we hold that Pete......
-
Williams v. State
...that Graham applies retroactively. See, e.g., Kleppinger v. State, 81 So.3d 547, 549–50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ; St. Val v. State, 107 So.3d 553, 554–55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We see no material distinction between the Graham and Miller cases in terms of the analysis required for retroactivity. S......
-
Davis v. State
...130 S.Ct. 2011. Graham applies retroactively to cases that were final on direct appeal, such as Appellant's case. St. Val v. State, 107 So.3d 553, 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).In Henry, the Florida Supreme Court held “that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under......
-
Post-conviction relief
...without parole on a juvenile offender who does not commit homicide is unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida. St. Val v. State, 107 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) An allegation that defendant’s scoresheet was incorrectly calculated based on a claim that a prior burglary charge perta......
-
Miscellaneous
...without parole on a juvenile offender who does not commit homicide is unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida. St. Val v. State, 107 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) Upon rehearing, case is remanded to the trial court to conduct further sentencing proceedings and expressly consider whe......