final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello,
Bruce Anderson, Steven B. Whittington, Judges.
Moody, Attorney General, Tabitha R. Herrera and Kaitlin
Weiss, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for
Charlie Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb,
Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellees.
in these cases, which we consolidate for disposition, were
each sentenced to life in prison for offenses committed as
juveniles and were all later granted resentencing pursuant to
Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016) (holding
that a juvenile life sentence with the possibility of parole
violates the Eighth Amendment as it is effectively a life
sentence without parole under Florida's statutory parole
process). The State did not appeal the orders granting
resentencing. Prior to any of the Appellees being
resentenced, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in
State v. Michel, 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018), which
implicitly overruled Atwell, finding that a juvenile
offender's life sentence with the possibility of parole
after 25 years does not violate the Eighth Amendment because
the juvenile has a meaningful opportunity to receive parole.
The Florida Supreme Court later held similarly in
Franklin v. State, 258 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2018).
the mandate issued in Michel but before
Franklin became final, the State filed in each case
a motion to rescind the order that granted resentencing. The
State argued that the change in the law effected by
Michel warranted this relief. Alternatively, the
State sought to stay resentencing until the opinion in
Franklin became final. In each case, the circuit
court denied the State's motion, finding that it lacked
jurisdiction to rescind the order granting resentencing. The
State then appealed. Appellees now file motions to dismiss
arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the
orders denying the State's motions to rescind. We agree
that the orders are not appealable. The State's right to
appeal in a criminal case is wholly dependent on statutory
authorization, and this Court must construe the statute
narrowly. Exposito v. State, 891 So.2d 525, 527-28
(Fla. 2004). The plain language of sections 924.066 and
924.07, Florida Statutes (2018), does not authorize these
State argues that the orders denying the motions to rescind
are appealable as orders granting postconviction relief.
See § 924.066(2), Fla. Stat. (2018); Fla. R.
App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(J). However, the postconviction relief in
these cases had already been granted in the orders granting
resentencing. As the circuit court has noted in the orders
now appealed, the time for the State to seek review of the
orders granting resentencing was within 30 days after those
orders were rendered. The orders granting resentencing are
now final. Simmons v. State, 2019 WL 2128216, *2
(Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Jordan v. State, 81 So.3d 595,
596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Rather than granting postconviction
relief, the orders denying the State's motions to rescind
merely found that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to
reconsider the orders granting resentencing.
State also argues that the orders denying its motions to
rescind are appealable as orders imposing an illegal
sentence. See § 924.07(1)(e), Fla. Stat.
(2018); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(M). We reject this
argument as resentencing has not yet taken place. Once the
Appellees are resentenced, the State may appeal any sentence
that it believes to be illegal.
these appeals are Dismissed.
Roberts, and M.K. ...