Jamie L. Tyson v. State , 199 So. 3d 1087 ( 2016 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JAMIE LYNN TYSON,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4050
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 2, 2016
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Hernando County,
Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.
Jamie Lynn Tyson, Century, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jamie Lynn Tyson ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's denial of his Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant was convicted of
robbery with a weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a deadly weapon, and
evidence tampering. The trial court sentenced Appellant, then 17 years old, to 30 years
for robbery with a weapon, 15 years for conspiracy, and 5 years for evidence tampering.
Appellant's sentences were to run consecutively. Appellant argues, and we agree, that
his sentences violate Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015), by not affording him a
meaningful opportunity for early release based upon demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation. We vacate Appellant's sentences, remand for resentencing, certify conflict
with the First and Second District Courts, and certify four questions of great public
importance to our supreme court.
In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth
Amendment prohibits the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile
offender who did not commit a homicide. 560 U.S. 48, 52 (2010). The Court explained its
holding as follows:
A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a
juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime. What the
State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some
meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in
the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for
compliance. It bears emphasis, however, that while the Eighth
Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a life without
parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, it does
not require the State to release that offender during his natural
life. Those who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles
may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of
incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth
Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons
convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood
will remain behind bars for life. It does prohibit States from
making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never
will be fit to reenter society.
Id. at 75 (emphasis added).
In response to Graham, our Legislature amended three statutory sections
concerning juvenile sentencing, effective on July 1, 2014. See ch. 2014-220, Laws of Fla.1
1 Now codified in sections 775.082, 921.1401, 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2014).
2
The new juvenile sentencing framework does not prohibit lengthy term-of-years
sentences; rather, it establishes a review mechanism whereby the sentencing court can
modify the sentence based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. Id.After this new framework took effect, our supreme court issued its opinion in Henry,
addressing whether Graham applies to lengthy term-of-years sentences. Henry, 175 So.
3d at 676. The court answered that question in the affirmative:
[W]e have determined that Graham applies to ensure that
juvenile nonhomicide offenders will not be sentenced to terms
of imprisonment without affording them a meaningful
opportunity for early release based on a demonstration of
maturity and rehabilitation.
In light of Graham, and other Supreme Court
precedent, we conclude that the Eighth Amendment will not
tolerate prison sentences that lack a review mechanism for
evaluating this special class of offenders for demonstrable
maturity and reform in the future because any term of
imprisonment for a juvenile is qualitatively different than a
comparable period of incarceration is for an adult.
Id. at 680 (citation omitted). Finding that the defendant's 90-year sentence violated
Graham, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing with retroactive application
of the new sentencing framework. Id. On the same date our supreme court issued Henry,
it determined that a juvenile's 70-year sentence likewise violated Graham. Gridine v.
State, 175 So. 3d 672, 674-75 (Fla. 2015). Accordingly, the court remanded for
resentencing with retroactive application of sections 775.082(3)(c), 921.1401, and
921.1402. Id. at 675.
In light of the foregoing, our court has determined that a term-of-years sentence
that does not afford a meaningful opportunity for early release based on demonstrated
maturity and rehabilitation violates Graham, requiring resentencing with retroactive
3
application of the new sentencing framework. See, e.g., Peterson v. State, 193 So. 3d
1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Conversely, the First District Court has held that a similar
sentence does not violate Graham, thus retroactive application is not warranted. Kelsey
v. State, 183 So. 3d 439, 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), on reh'g (Nov. 9, 2015), review
granted, SC15-2079, 2015 WL 7720518 (Fla. Nov. 19, 2015); see also Williams v. State,
41 Fla. L. Weekly D508 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 26, 2016) ("The postconviction court correctly
denied [defendant's] claim. [Defendant] would be entitled to be resentenced only if his
sentence violated Graham." (citation omitted)).
In Peterson, our court determined that the defendant's 56-year sentence could not
stand under Graham and its progeny. Peterson, 193 So. 3d at 1039. We relied on the
Florida Supreme Court's holding in Thomas v. State, 177 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 2015), which
quashed the First District Court's decision in Thomas v. State, 135 So. 3d 590 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2014). In Thomas, the First District Court upheld a juvenile defendant's 30-year
sentence for armed robbery, concurrent with his 40-year sentence for first-degree murder.
135 So. 3d at 590. Though not a life sentence, our supreme court reversed and remanded
for resentencing "in conformance with the framework established in chapter 2014-220,
Laws of Florida." Thomas, 177 So. 3d at 1275 (citation omitted). We noted in Peterson
that, because the juvenile in Thomas committed a homicide, his sentence implicated
Miller,2 not Graham. Peterson, 193 So. 3d at 1038. Nonetheless, we highlighted the
potentially inconsistent result of not reversing the juvenile's sentence:
Though Thomas involved a juvenile who committed a
homicide, thereby implicating Miller and not Graham, as noted
2 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) (holding that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits sentencing schemes mandating life-without-parole sentences for juvenile
homicide offenders).
4
by Judge Benton in his dissenting opinion in Kelsey, if the
constitutionality of a juvenile nonhomicide offender's sentence
is based solely on whether the juvenile received a de facto life
sentence, then, pursuant to Thomas, a juvenile homicide
offender whose forty-year sentence is invalid, and therefore
entitled to resentencing under the new juvenile sentencing
law, is actually treated more favorably than a juvenile
nonhomicide offender, such as Mr. Kelsey, whose forty-five-
year sentence was affirmed as constitutional.
Id. (citing Kelsey, 183 So. 3d at 447 n.6 (Benton, J., dissenting)). Accordingly, we vacated
the defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the new juvenile
sentencing framework. Id.Relying on Peterson, we conclude that Appellant's composite 45-year sentence
violates Graham and its progeny. Importantly, we do not suggest that the trial court cannot
sentence Appellant to 45 years' incarceration. Rather, the sentence imposed upon
remand must include the requirement that Appellant is entitled to review of his sentence
after serving 20 years. See § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2014).
Having concluded that Appellant's sentence violates Graham, we certify conflict
with the following decisions upholding sentences longer than or equal to Appellant's,
without retroactive application of the new sentencing framework: Collins v. State, 189 So.
3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Williams, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D508; Kelsey, 183 So. 3d 439;
Austin v. State, 127 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Thomas v. State, 78 So. 3d 644(Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Additionally, we certify the same four questions of great public importance that we
did in Peterson:
1. DOES HENRY V. STATE, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015),
ONLY APPLY TO LENGTHY TERM–OF–YEARS
SENTENCES THAT AMOUNT TO DE FACTO LIFE
SENTENCES?
5
2. DOES HENRY APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO
SENTENCES THAT WERE FINAL AT THE TIME HENRY
WAS DECIDED?
3. IF HENRY ONLY APPLIES TO DE FACTO LIFE
SENTENCES, THEN, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
TERM–OF–YEARS SENTENCE IS A DE FACTO LIFE
SENTENCE, SHOULD FACTORS SUCH AS GENDER,
RACE, SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, AND POTENTIAL
GAIN TIME BE CONSIDERED?
4. IF SO, AT WHAT POINT DOES A TERM–OF–YEARS
SENTENCE BECOME A DE FACTO LIFE SENTENCE?
VACATED; REMANDED for RESENTENCING; CONFLICT CERTIFIED;
QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.
ORFINGER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
6