Johnson v. State

384 So.3d 213

Corey B. JOHNSON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D2022-0876

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CF002758AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

May, J.

The constitutional parameters for sentencing a defendant, a juvenile when he committed the crimes, is raised in this appeal. The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The defendant raises six arguments: three relate to evidence and three relate to sentencing. We affirm on all issues and write to address only the defendant’s constitutional argument regarding his consecutive life sentences.

• The Facts

The defendant, who was seventeen when he committed the crimes, had a best friend named Kyle. As they grew up together, the defendant spent a lot of time at Kyle’s house and occasionally slept over.

In 2017, the defendant converted to Islam. Kyle noticed an immediate change in the defendant and witnessed his beliefs become more extreme over time. The defendant confided in Kyle that he felt depressed. The defendant also confided in Kyle that he was secretly messaging with a woman named Hafsa. The defendant later shared Hafsa had ceased all communications without warning, which left him feeling devastated.

Unbeknownst to Kyle, the defendant’s relationship with Hafsa was grounded in a mutual attraction to, appreciation for, and desire to commit unspeakable violence. Hafsa routinely told the defendant she was sexually attracted to killing, and the two frequently exchanged graphic videos.¹ Also unbeknownst to Kyle, the defendant had been planning a "Qital" (meaning "war") with Hafsa for some time.

On the day of the defendant’s premeditated attack, he purchased a six-inch utility knife. The defendant then attended a birthday dinner celebration with Kyle, Kyle’s mother, Kyle’s brother, and Kyle’s brother’s friend Jovanni. After dinner, the defendant and Jovanni joined Kyle and his family at their home for a sleepover. The boys "hung out" briefly, then all prepared for bed and fell asleep.

Once everyone was asleep, the defendant began his attack, starting with Jovanni. The defendant viewed Jovanni as the "easiest" to kill given his sleeping location. The defendant also thought he could kill Jovanni quietly, but explained to the police he knew he had "messed up" when Jovanni started screaming.

Jovanni’s screaming woke up Kyle’s mother, who first came to check on the noise. Upon so doing, Kyle’s mother saw the defendant standing over Jovanni’s body, holding a knife, covered in blood.

Kyle’s mother tried to grab the knife from the defendant, but he stabbed her in the neck and chest. The defendant cut both of her wrists and sliced her Achilles tendon. The mother also suffered multiple lacerations to her forehead, chin, neck, chest, left wrist, and right elbow.

Kyle’s brother next awoke. The defendant later admitted he attacked Kyle’s brother to "prevent him from calling the police." Kyle’s brother sustained thirty stab wounds.

The defendant last entered Kyle’s bedroom, still holding the bloody knife, and explained he had killed Jovanni and Kyle’s brother. The defendant assured Kyle he was "not kidding," but that, because of their friendship, Kyle would not be hurt.

Kyle’s mother simultaneously ran next door, and a neighbor called 911. Kyle’s brother escaped from the second floor. Jovanni succumbed to his injuries and passed away before law enforcement arrived.

Once on scene, police officers watched the defendant enter a closet holding a knife. Eventually, a SWAT team used tear gas to force the defendant out. The defendant surrendered to law enforcement while repeating 'Allah" and "Akbar."²

When the officers took the defendant into custody, they found a letter on his person. The letter was written in Arabic and intended for Hafsa. The letter thanked Hafsa for caring about him and alerted her that he had sent pictures of Kyle’s brother, Jovanni, and himself holding the knife to her phone.

The State charged the defendant with one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found the defendant guilty of all charges.

The defendant was seventeen when he committed the crimes and twenty-one when he was convicted and sentenced. The trial court considered each factor enumer- ated in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2017), in sentencing the defendant.

Ultimately, the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for each charge, specifically ordering his two life sentences for attempted murder (counts II and III) run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the life sentence for murder (count I). The trial court orally announced the defendant would be eligible for judicial review on two occasions: after serving twenty-five years on count I and again after twenty-five years served on his consecutive life sentences for counts II and III.

The defendant filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) motion, raising two challenges. First, the defendant argued his consecutive life sentences violated the Eighth Amendment because they precluded release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation (upon review of his murder sentence only). The trial court denied that portion of the defendant’s motion, relying on Hegwood v. State, 308 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), and Warthen v. State, 265 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Second, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of his sentence as an impermissible "pre-determination" in violation of due process. The trial court denied that portion of the defendant’s motion "without elaboration." From his convictions and sentences, the defendant now appeals.

• The Analysis

[1] The defendant argues his consecutive life sentences violate the Eighth Amendment because they preclude his release from incarceration after his first life sentence’s twenty-five-year judicial review. The State responds the consecutive sentences are constitutional because the defendant received individualized sentencing proceedings and will receive review for each life sentence.

We agree with the State and affirm. We hold a defendant sentenced to life without parole for one homicide offense, consecutively followed by two concurrent life-with-out-parole sentences for related nonhomicide offenses, is constitutional because the defendant has an opportunity for "meaningful review."

[2] "Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo." Metellus v. State, 310 So. 3d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting Brooks v. State, 199 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).

Here, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three terms of life imprisonment, ordering his life sentences for the nonhomicide offenses run concurrent to each other but consecutive to his first life sentence for his homicide offense. Because each life sentence must be reviewed after twenty-five years, the defendant’s sentences will first be reviewed twenty-five years into his first life sentence. However, because the life sentences on the nonhomicide offenses run consecutively, he will not be eligible for release irrespective of his first review’s findings. Instead, he will only be eligible for review in another twenty-five years. Thus, the defendant will not be eligible for release until the expiration of fifty years.

The defendant argues three points: (1) the trial court incorrectly relied on Warthen; (2) Hegwood does not compel an affirmance; and (3) Purdy intentionally left open the question which his appeal now presents. The State responds the Florida Legislature enacted sections 775.082,³ 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2017), "[i]n direct response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller and Graham," and the cases cited by the defendant are inapplicable. See Horsley v. State, 160 So. 3d 393, 406 (Fla. 2015).

[3] A trial court’s discretion in sentencing is quite broad within applicable statutory limits. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 481–82, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); see also Hoskins v. State, 965 So. 2d 1, 18 (Fla. 2007) ("Trial courts are in the best position to observe the unique circumstances of a case and have broad discretion …. ").

The United States Supreme Court has reviewed the constitutionality of life sentences without parole for juveniles in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 469, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). In Graham, the Court reviewed a juvenile’s life sentence without parole for a nonhomicide crime. 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. The Court reached the conclusion the life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. Id. Subsequently, in Miller, the Court held "that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison [for a homicide offense] without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders." 567 U.S. at 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455.

Graham and Miller, however, considered a single life sentence for a single crime. The United States Supreme Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of consecutive life sentences for a juvenile.

Subsequently, in State v. Purdy, 252 So. 3d 723, 725 (Fla. 2018), our supreme court had the opportunity to review a juvenile’s Efe sentence without parole for a homicide offense and a consecutive sentence of ten years for nonhomicide offenses (armed robbery and armed carjacking). There, a juvenile defendant filed a Rule 3.800 motion concerning his...