Blake v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blake v. State

198 So. 3d 16, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10498, 2015 WL 5522126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 2015

Docket2D10-5700

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 16 (Blake v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blake v. State, 198 So. 3d 16, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10498, 2015 WL 5522126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*17 BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s amended motion for rehearing, motion for written opinion, and motion for rehearing en banc, filed April 30,2015,

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellant’s amended motion for rehearing is granted in part and denied in part; the motion for written opinion is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for rehearing en banc is denied. This court’s opinion dated March 11, 2015, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place.

BLACK, Judge.

Ta Heem Blake challenges his sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary of a dwelling. We affirm Blake’s sentence for armed burglary without comment. We affirm his sentence for first-degree murder but remand for a determination of whether Blake is entitled to review of his life sentence pursuant to section 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014).

Blake was convicted of first-degree murder, a capital felony; armed burglary, a first-degree felony punishable by life; and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. The jury specifically found that Blake discharged a firearm which resulted in death and that during the course of the aggravated battery Blake , discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily harm. Blake was seventeen years old at the time he committed the crimes.

Following a motion to correct sentencing error, the trial court conducted an individualized sentencing hearing at which it heard witness testimony and applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). After expressly eon-sidering the factors outlined in Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, the court resentenced Blake to, life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction.

Because Blake received the individualized sentencing hearing discussed in Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015), we affirm his life sentence. However, we remand for the trial court to determine whether Blake is entitled to judicial review of his sentence after twenty-five years. See § 921.1402(2)(a); Horsley, 160 So.3d at 408.

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*17 BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s amended motion for rehearing, motion for written opinion, and motion for rehearing en banc, filed April 30,2015,

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellant’s amended motion for rehearing is granted in part and denied in part; the motion for written opinion is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for rehearing en banc is denied. This court’s opinion dated March 11, 2015, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place.

BLACK, Judge.

Ta Heem Blake challenges his sentences for first-degree murder and armed burglary of a dwelling. We affirm Blake’s sentence for armed burglary without comment. We affirm his sentence for first-degree murder but remand for a determination of whether Blake is entitled to review of his life sentence pursuant to section 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014).

Blake was convicted of first-degree murder, a capital felony; armed burglary, a first-degree felony punishable by life; and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. The jury specifically found that Blake discharged a firearm which resulted in death and that during the course of the aggravated battery Blake , discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily harm. Blake was seventeen years old at the time he committed the crimes.

Following a motion to correct sentencing error, the trial court conducted an individualized sentencing hearing at which it heard witness testimony and applied the Supreme Court’s rulings in Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). After expressly eon-sidering the factors outlined in Miller and now codified in section 921.1401, the court resentenced Blake to, life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction.

Because Blake received the individualized sentencing hearing discussed in Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393 (Fla.2015), we affirm his life sentence. However, we remand for the trial court to determine whether Blake is entitled to judicial review of his sentence after twenty-five years. See § 921.1402(2)(a); Horsley, 160 So.3d at 408.

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 16, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10498, 2015 WL 5522126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack