DAVIS v. STATE (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Harry Lee DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-90

Decided: March 11, 2020

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Affirmed. See White v. State, 271 So. 3d 1023, 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Florida's juvenile sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401[, Florida Statutes,] does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000),] and its progeny.”); Simmons v. State, 267 So. 3d 1067, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[T]his Court has previously rejected the argument that a jury, rather than the trial court, must determine whether a life sentence is appropriate under the statutory factors in section 921.1401.”); Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Florida's juvenile sentencing procedure set forth in section 921.1401, as contemplated by Miller [v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012)], does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and its progeny.”), review denied, SC17-2060, 2018 WL 3213795 (Fla. July 2, 2018), cert. denied, Beckman v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1166, 203 L.Ed.2d 210 (2019).

PER CURIAM.

KELLY, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network