Wells v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells v. State

208 So. 3d 1235, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 560

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2017

DocketCase No. 2D15-5618

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 So. 3d 1235 (Wells 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

Wells v. State, 208 So. 3d 1235, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 560 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James E. Wells appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2). We reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040, 1050 (Fla. 2016). In Atwell, the supreme court concluded that Florida’s existing parole system does not provide the individualized sentencing consideration required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), for a juvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. Id.; see also Hixon v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2594, 205 So.3d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Landy v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2555, 205 So.3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 16, 2016); Michel v. State, 204 So.3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). On remand, Mr. Wells is entitled to resentenc-ing pursuant to sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, WALLACE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James E. Wells appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2). We reverse and remand for resentencing pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040, 1050 (Fla. 2016). In Atwell, the supreme court concluded that Florida’s existing parole system does not provide the individualized sentencing consideration required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), for a juvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. Id.; see also Hixon v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2594, 205 So.3d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Landy v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2555, 205 So.3d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 16, 2016); Michel v. State, 204 So.3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). On remand, Mr. Wells is entitled to resentenc-ing pursuant to sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, WALLACE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 3d 1235, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack