Robbins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robbins v. State

170 So. 3d 958, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11891, 2015 WL 4757872

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-2355

StatusPublished

This text of 170 So. 3d 958 (Robbins 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

Robbins v. State, 170 So. 3d 958, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11891, 2015 WL 4757872 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

In consideration of the State’s motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and substitute this opinion in its stead.

In this direct appeal, Appellant, Bennie Louis Robbins, III, raises several challenges to his convictions and sentences that arose out of offenses that occurred in 2012 when he was a juvenile. Relying on the doctrine of statutory revival, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for his first-degree felony murder conviction. After this sentence was imposed, the supreme court declined to adopt the doctrine of statutory revival. Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393, 406-08 (Fla.2015). Accordingly, we reverse that sentence consistent with the decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). On remand, the trial court should resen-tence Appellant in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. See Horsley, 160 So.3d at 405-06. All other issues raised on appeal are affirmed without further comment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ROWE, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

In consideration of the State’s motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and substitute this opinion in its stead.

In this direct appeal, Appellant, Bennie Louis Robbins, III, raises several challenges to his convictions and sentences that arose out of offenses that occurred in 2012 when he was a juvenile. Relying on the doctrine of statutory revival, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for his first-degree felony murder conviction. After this sentence was imposed, the supreme court declined to adopt the doctrine of statutory revival. Horsley v. State, 160 So.3d 393, 406-08 (Fla.2015). Accordingly, we reverse that sentence consistent with the decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). On remand, the trial court should resen-tence Appellant in conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. See Horsley, 160 So.3d at 405-06. All other issues raised on appeal are affirmed without further comment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ROWE, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 So. 3d 958, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11891, 2015 WL 4757872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack