Juarez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Juarez v. State

138 So. 3d 1094, 2014 WL 1796006, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 2014

DocketNo. 4D11-3724

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 So. 3d 1094 (Juarez 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

Juarez v. State, 138 So. 3d 1094, 2014 WL 1796006, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6715 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her conviction for first-degree murder, and finding no error, we affirm her conviction. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her request to introduce evidence regarding domestic violence committed by her mother’s ex-boyfriend, and in allowing the investigating detective to testify why he charged appellant with first-degree murder. We find no abuse of discretion in all of the trial court’s rulings, and we affirm appellant’s conviction without further discussion.

Appellant also asserts that her resulting sentence of life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2464, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.” (emphasis added). Because appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, we agree and reverse her mandatory life sentence and remand for resentencing after consideration of the factors outlined in Miller. See Brighton v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

MAY, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals her conviction for first-degree murder, and finding no error, we affirm her conviction. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her request to introduce evidence regarding domestic violence committed by her mother’s ex-boyfriend, and in allowing the investigating detective to testify why he charged appellant with first-degree murder. We find no abuse of discretion in all of the trial court’s rulings, and we affirm appellant’s conviction without further discussion.

Appellant also asserts that her resulting sentence of life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2464, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.” (emphasis added). Because appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, we agree and reverse her mandatory life sentence and remand for resentencing after consideration of the factors outlined in Miller. See Brighton v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

MAY, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 1094, 2014 WL 1796006, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juarez-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack