Jean-Baptiste v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jean-Baptiste v. State

76 So. 3d 1070, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20587, 2011 WL 6373002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 2011

DocketNo. 4D09-4958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 So. 3d 1070 (Jean-Baptiste 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

Jean-Baptiste v. State, 76 So. 3d 1070, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20587, 2011 WL 6373002 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MAY, C.J.

The defendant appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a person under twelve by a person under the age of eighteen, and his life sentence. We find no merit in the issues raised concerning his conviction, but reverse his life sentence. We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a defendant under the age of eighteen at the time the crime is committed. Graham v. Florida, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2033-34, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). “A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.” Id. at 2034.

Here, the defendant was sixteen at the time of the crime. His life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and must be reversed. See Cunningham v. State, 74 So.3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

The conviction is affirmed, but the life sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing.

STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

MAY, C.J.

The defendant appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a person under twelve by a person under the age of eighteen, and his life sentence. We find no merit in the issues raised concerning his conviction, but reverse his life sentence. We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a defendant under the age of eighteen at the time the crime is committed. Graham v. Florida, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2033-34, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). “A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.” Id. at 2034.

Here, the defendant was sixteen at the time of the crime. His life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and must be reversed. See Cunningham v. State, 74 So.3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

The conviction is affirmed, but the life sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing.

STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 1070, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20587, 2011 WL 6373002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-baptiste-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack