Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
CHRISTIN BILOTTI v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Citation: Not availableDocket: 15-3559
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 13, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Christin Bilotti, citing reasons detailed in a related case, Pacchiana v. State. The court remanded the case for a new trial, with Chief Judge Gerber concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreeing with the reversal but expressing different views on certain issues. Judge May dissented, advocating for the affirmation of the conviction based on a prospective juror issue, while also suggesting reversal and remand for resentencing. Bilotti's defense argued that the trial court erred by denying her motion to correct her sentence, asserting that as a juvenile at the time of the offense, she was entitled to resentencing after 15 years due to her lengthy sentence without judicial review. The State contended that her juvenile status alone did not warrant resentencing. The court noted that it reviews sentencing errors de novo and referenced Florida statutes that allow for review of sentences for juvenile offenders sentenced to over 15 years, particularly if they did not kill, intend to kill, or attempt to kill the victim. Although the relevant statute applies only to offenses committed after July 1, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the statute is retroactive to juvenile offenders with unconstitutional sentences as established in Miller v. Alabama and subsequently extended to non-homicide juvenile offenders with lengthy sentences. In Andrevil v. State, 226 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), the court ruled that a defendant sentenced to 35 years without review, for offenses committed as a juvenile before the enactment of section 921.1402, was entitled to the benefits of the new sentence review statute. The key issue is the retroactive application of section 921.1402 to homicide cases, with prior cases like Johnson and Andrevil focusing on non-homicide offenses, yet indicating that homicide offenses do fall under this statute. Recent rulings, including a Second District decision on a 40-year sentence for second-degree murder, have suggested that even juvenile homicide offenders may warrant resentencing. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District's ruling, mandating resentencing. Additionally, in Tarrand v. State, 199 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), resentencing was deemed appropriate for a juvenile in a homicide case. Conversely, Davis v. State, 214 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), upheld the denial of resentencing for a juvenile sentenced to 35 years for second-degree murder, despite the defendant being 17 at the time of the offense. The trial court's comments indicated a recognition of the defendant's youth and choices, but the current legal trend appears to support a review of non-life sentences, leading to a recommendation for remand for resentencing under section 921.1402. The decision remains pending until any timely motions for rehearing are resolved.