Juvenile Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Florida: When the Judge’s Hands Are Tied and When They’re Not

Juvenile Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in Florida: When the Judge’s Hands Are Tied — and When They’re Not

Juvenile mandatory minimum sentencing in Florida has produced some of the most heartbreaking cases I’ve seen in thirty-plus years of practice. A seventeen-year-old makes one decision at the worst possible moment in their development, and a judge sits on the bench — fully aware that the person in front of them is young, redeemable, and scared — and sentences them anyway to a decade or more in prison. Not because the judge wants to. Because the law says the judge has to.

That’s what mandatory minimums do. They remove discretion from people whose job is to exercise discretion, and they produce outcomes that are sometimes wildly disproportionate to what the human in front of the court actually deserves.

---

Facing Serious Charges as a Juvenile or Young Adult in Florida?

Juvenile mandatory minimum sentencing in Florida can bind even a sympathetic judge. Call John Guidry at (407) 423-1117 before any plea is entered or any sentencing decision is made.

---

The Constitutional Framework: What the Supreme Court Has Already Said

Before getting into what happened in the case at the heart of this video, the constitutional landscape matters. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed juvenile sentencing multiple times, and each time it’s moved in the same direction.

In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits life without parole for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses. In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the Court struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders, requiring instead that courts conduct individualized sentencing that considers the characteristics of youth. Together, these cases established a constitutional principle: juveniles are fundamentally different from adults for sentencing purposes. Their brains aren’t fully developed. Their characters aren’t fully formed. They have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults who commit the same crimes.

What the Court has not done — yet — is apply that logic to every lengthy mandatory minimum that doesn’t technically amount to life. That gap is where the Florida cases John describes live.

A Flagler County Case That Illustrated the Problem

John describes a case involving a young defendant from Flagler County — referred to here as “State v. Tishner” — where a seventeen-year-old faced a fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for crimes committed as a juvenile. A judge who understood the constitutional arguments couldn’t help. The mandatory minimum statute tied the court’s hands. The sentence went in, and it went in for fifteen years, regardless of what any reasonable person looking at this particular young person’s circumstances might have thought was just.

This is the trial penalty dressed up as a legislative mandate. The legislature writes the mandatory minimums. Prosecutors charge the offenses that trigger them. The judge — who might well agree that fifteen years for a seventeen-year-old in a specific set of circumstances is disproportionate — has no way out. The law requires the sentence.

(Note to John: I could not verify “State v. Tishner” or the related “Cameron” case from Flagler County in any Florida DCA database. Please confirm the case citations before this article goes live so I can add them and strengthen the legal authority.)

The Eighth Amendment Argument That’s Still Developing

Here’s the legal argument defense attorneys are making in cases like this, and why it hasn’t yet produced a definitive appellate ruling that changes everything: the proportionality principle in the Eighth Amendment has limits in the non-capital sentencing context that the courts haven’t fully resolved.

The Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment proportionality cases involving juveniles specifically addressed life sentences. Fifteen years, twenty years — these sentences haven’t yet received the same categorical treatment. Courts applying the Graham and Miller framework have generally required individualized consideration for the most extreme sentences, while leaving intact mandatory minimums that fall short of true life. The argument that a fifteen-year mandatory minimum for a seventeen-year-old constitutes cruel and unusual punishment remains viable but unsettled.

What the trial penalty dynamic adds to this is important. When a prosecutor knows a defendant faces fifteen years mandatory at trial, the plea negotiation happens with that shadow overhead. The defendant who accepts a plea to avoid that mandatory minimum gives up their appellate rights as part of the deal. The one who goes to trial and loses receives the mandatory fifteen years — and now has the right to appeal a sentence that may not survive Eighth Amendment scrutiny. The government’s charging leverage and the mandatory minimum work together in a way that reduces the number of cases that ever reach an appellate court with the constitutional question properly preserved.

What Defense Attorneys Should Do Right Now

In any case where a juvenile faces mandatory minimum sentencing in Florida, the constitutional arguments should be preserved at every stage. Document the defendant’s age, maturity, family circumstances, mental health history, and any mitigating factors that would be relevant to individualized sentencing. File the Eighth Amendment argument in the trial court so it’s preserved for appeal even if the trial court is bound to reject it. Make the record.

The law continues to develop. Florida appellate courts haven’t yet issued a definitive ruling on whether lengthy mandatory minimums short of life violate the Eighth Amendment when courts impose them on juveniles for specific categories of offenses. A well-preserved record is what gives an appellate court the foundation to change that answer.

If You Want More Related Content

Check out our more videos and breakdown articles covering major updates in Florida defense law. You can also use the links below to stay informed. Learn how to protect your constitutional rights when dealing with law enforcement.

Watch: https://youtu.be/YQh3rPsQ3XQ

Read: https://jgcrimlaw.com/articles/an-honest-prosecutor-helps-overturn-his-own-conviction/

---

John’s Takeaways

• Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), established that juveniles are constitutionally different for sentencing purposes. Mandatory life without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment.
• The constitutional principle hasn’t yet fully reached mandatory minimums short of life. Fifteen-year and twenty-year mandatory minimums for juvenile offenders represent an unsettled area of law.
• Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion — a sympathetic judge cannot give the sentence they believe is just when the statute mandates a specific term.
• The trial penalty dynamic suppresses constitutional challenges. Defendants who accept pleas to avoid mandatory minimums give up appellate rights. The ones who go to trial preserve the Eighth Amendment argument.
• Defense attorneys must preserve the constitutional argument at the trial level to give appellate courts the foundation to rule on it. Make the record, even when the trial court is bound to deny relief.

---

Facing Serious Charges as a Young Offender in Central Florida?

I’ve been defending juvenile and young adult clients in Central Florida since 1993, and mandatory minimum sentencing in these cases requires immediate attention before any charging decisions or plea offers are made. I represent clients across Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County.

Give my office a call. The decisions made early in these cases can make the difference between a young person’s future and the absence of one.

John Guidry — (407) 423-1117

About John Guidry II

John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.