Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 921.1401 (2025)
Sentence of life imprisonment for persons who are under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense; sentencing proceedings.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
921.1401 Sentence of life imprisonment for persons who are under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense; sentencing proceedings.—
(1) Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of an offense described in s. 775.082(1)(b), s. 775.082(3)(a)5., s. 775.082(3)(b)2., or s. 775.082(3)(c) which was committed on or after July 1, 2014, the court may conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine if a term of imprisonment for life or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence.
(2) In determining whether life imprisonment or a term of years equal to life imprisonment is an appropriate sentence, the court shall consider factors relevant to the offense and the defendant’s youth and attendant circumstances, including, but not limited to:
(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense committed by the defendant.
(b) The effect of the crime on the victim’s family and on the community.
(c) The defendant’s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and mental and emotional health at the time of the offense.
(d) The defendant’s background, including his or her family, home, and community environment.
(e) The effect, if any, of immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences on the defendant’s participation in the offense.
(f) The extent of the defendant’s participation in the offense.
(g) The effect, if any, of familial pressure or peer pressure on the defendant’s actions.
(h) The nature and extent of the defendant’s prior criminal history.
(i) The effect, if any, of characteristics attributable to the defendant’s youth on the defendant’s judgment.
(j) The possibility of rehabilitating the defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016).
Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). “Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.”
Thomas Kelsey v. State of Florida, 206 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 2016). “Indeed, the sentencing court considered some of the individualized sentencing considerations since codified in section 921.1401(1) when determining whether to again sentence Kelsey to life in prison or to some lesser term.”
Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “The underlying facts On April 12, 2009, the then seventeen-year-old defendant shot and killed his father with a shotgun in the bathroom of their home, while his father was taking a shower. The shotgun had two barrels, each with a safety.”
State of Florida v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018). “See § 921.1401, Fla. Stat. (2017). Additionally, at the hearing, the sentencing court would have the discretion to impose a term of years sentence as low as forty years' imprisonment.”
Kelvin Terrill Dortch v. State of Florida, 266 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “We also conclude that the trial court made the findings required by section 921.1401, Florida Statutes before imposing life sentences.”
Rodrick D. Williams v. State of Florida, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018). “The court subsequently held a resentencing hearing on the first-degree murder conviction pursuant to section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2016), and again sentenced Williams to life imprisonment, but with a sentence review in twenty-five years, as required by section 921.”
Felix Josue Martinez v. State of Florida, 256 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “§§ 921.1401−.1402, Fla. Stat. (2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since provided that all juvenile offenders who were given life sentences (whether discretionary or mandatory, homicide or not) without consideration of the factors enumerated in Graham and Miller are entitled to…”
People v. Skinner, 917 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. 2018). “, 2016) (holding that "[ e ] ven in a **149 discretionary sentencing scheme , the sentencing court's exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender's 'youth and its attendant circumstances' as articulated in…”
Dennis L. Hart v. State of Florida, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “Appellant argued that the trial court must reconsider his sentence in light of the factors enumerated in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (enacted as part of chapter 2014-220).”
Nickolas White v. State of Florida, 271 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “We affirm as to all other issues raised, but write to address appellant’s argument that section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, violates the Sixth Amendment.”
Dontavious Lamar Copeland v. State of Florida, 240 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “The first motion argued that a jury verdict was needed on the sentencing factors in order to authorize his sentence under § 921.1401. The trial court denied this motion.”
Kevin Nelms v. State of Florida, 263 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “After granting the defendant a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Miller, the trial court held a hearing wherein it considered witnesses’ testimony on the defendant’s behalf, the defendant’s remorse, and the criteria set out in section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, before imposing…”
— 921.1401(1) — 9 cases
Thomas Kelsey v. State of Florida, 206 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 2016). “Indeed, the sentencing court considered some of the individualized sentencing considerations since codified in section 921.1401(1) when determining whether to again sentence Kelsey to life in prison or to some lesser term.”
Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “The underlying facts On April 12, 2009, the then seventeen-year-old defendant shot and killed his father with a shotgun in the bathroom of their home, while his father was taking a shower. The shotgun had two barrels, each with a safety.”
Kelsey v. State, 183 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Kendall Young v. State, 219 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
Felix Josue Martinez v. State of Florida, 256 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “§§ 921.1401−.1402, Fla. Stat. (2014). The Florida Supreme Court has since provided that all juvenile offenders who were given life sentences (whether discretionary or mandatory, homicide or not) without consideration of the factors enumerated in Graham and Miller are entitled to…”
— 921.1401(2) — 32 cases
Thomas Kelsey v. State of Florida, 206 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 2016). “Indeed, the sentencing court considered some of the individualized sentencing considerations since codified in section 921.1401(1) when determining whether to again sentence Kelsey to life in prison or to some lesser term.”
Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). “Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.”
Kelvin Terrill Dortch v. State of Florida, 266 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “We also conclude that the trial court made the findings required by section 921.1401, Florida Statutes before imposing life sentences.”
Dennis L. Hart v. State of Florida, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “Appellant argued that the trial court must reconsider his sentence in light of the factors enumerated in section 921.1401(2), Florida Statutes (enacted as part of chapter 2014-220).”
Dontavious Lamar Copeland v. State of Florida, 240 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “The first motion argued that a jury verdict was needed on the sentencing factors in order to authorize his sentence under § 921.1401. The trial court denied this motion.”
— 921.1401(2)(a) — 8 cases
Tyler Joseph Hadley v. State of Florida, 190 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Jose A. Gonzalez v. State of Florida, 252 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
Labronx Bailey v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Labronx Bailey v. State of Florida (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Kenneth Purdy v. State, 268 So. 3d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
— 921.1401(2)(b) — 1 case
Berny Serrano v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
— 921.1401(2)(c) — 2 cases
Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). “Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.”
Berny Serrano v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
— 921.1401(2)(e) — 2 cases
Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). “Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.”
Johnny Barnes v. State, 227 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
— 921.1401(2)(g) — 1 case
Laisha L. Landrum v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2016). “Even in a discretionary sentencing scheme, the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion before imposing a life sentence must be informed by consideration of the juvenile offender’s “youth and its attendant circumstances” as articulated in Miller and now codified in section 921.”
— 921.1401(2)(h) — 1 case
Berny Serrano v. State of Florida (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
— 921.1401(2)(j) — 4 cases
Johnny Barnes v. State, 227 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
Brooks John Bellay v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Robinson v. State, 268 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
Robinson v. State, 268 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.