Michel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michel v. State

204 So. 3d 101, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16746

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 2016

DocketNo. 4D13-1123

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 204 So. 3d 101 (Michel 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

Michel v. State, 204 So. 3d 101, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16746 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla.2016). We also certify conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. We respectfully disagree with Stallings v. State, 198 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and Williams v. State, 198 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), to the extent that those decisions suggest that relief under Atwell is dependent on the defendant’s presumptive parole release date.

Our reading of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell ⅛ that Florida’s existing parole system does not provide the individualized sentencing consideration required by Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). Thus, as in Atwell, appellant is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the sentencing provisions enacted in Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Atwell, 197 So.3d at 1050.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for resentencing pursuant to Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla.2016). We also certify conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. We respectfully disagree with Stallings v. State, 198 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and Williams v. State, 198 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), to the extent that those decisions suggest that relief under Atwell is dependent on the defendant’s presumptive parole release date.

Our reading of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell ⅛ that Florida’s existing parole system does not provide the individualized sentencing consideration required by Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). Thus, as in Atwell, appellant is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the sentencing provisions enacted in Chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. Atwell, 197 So.3d at 1050.

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 101, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michel-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack