What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's imposition of a life sentence, finding the sentence term "life" is sufficiently clear and not void.

Who is affected by this decision?

Terrelle A. Tullis, the appellant, is directly affected because his challenge to the life sentence was rejected; the State's conviction and sentence remain in effect.

What happens next procedurally?

The decision is final unless Tullis files a timely motion for rehearing in this appellate court or pursues further postconviction relief in the trial court or a petition to a higher court.

On what legal basis did the court affirm?

The court relied on prior Florida precedent holding that a life sentence is intended to keep a defendant in prison for life and that the term is sufficiently definite to be applied.

Terrelle A. Tullis v. State of Florida

Docket 6D2025-2211

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: May 1, 2026 · today
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 6D2025-2211

Appeal from the circuit court in an appeal taken under Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) challenging a life sentence

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's judgment in the criminal case of Terrelle A. Tullis. The appeal was taken pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court concluded that a life sentence is clear and definite in meaning and upheld the sentencing outcome, relying on Ratliff v. State to support that the Legislature intends a life sentence to keep a defendant in prison for the remainder of life.

Issues Decided

Whether the life sentence imposed is void or unclear such that it must be vacated or modified
Whether sentencing language meets the statutory requirement that a life sentence be definite and understood

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on precedent holding that the Legislature's prescription of a life sentence indicates an intent that the defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life. Because the term "life" is sufficiently definite to be understood and applied, the sentencing challenged on appeal was legally proper. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's sentence without requiring modification.

Authorities Cited

Ratliff v. State914 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2005)

Parties

Appellant: Terrelle A. Tullis
Appellee: State of Florida
Judge: Barbara J. Leach
Attorney: James Uthmeier, Attorney General
Attorney: Zachary L. Wiseman, Assistant Attorney General

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If the appellant believes there are grounds, he may file a timely motion for rehearing in the appellate court within the rule-prescribed deadline.
2
Consult counsel about further relief
Speak with an attorney about potential postconviction options, including collateral challenges or, if applicable, seeking review by the Florida Supreme Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's imposition of a life sentence, finding the sentence term "life" is sufficiently clear and not void.
Who is affected by this decision?: Terrelle A. Tullis, the appellant, is directly affected because his challenge to the life sentence was rejected; the State's conviction and sentence remain in effect.
What happens next procedurally?: The decision is final unless Tullis files a timely motion for rehearing in this appellate court or pursues further postconviction relief in the trial court or a petition to a higher court.
On what legal basis did the court affirm?: The court relied on prior Florida precedent holding that a life sentence is intended to keep a defendant in prison for life and that the term is sufficiently definite to be applied.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                            STATE OF FLORIDA
                           _____________________________

                               Case No. 6D2025-2211
                       Lower Tribunal No. 2010-CF-005852-A-O
                         _____________________________

                                   TERRELLE A. TULLIS,

                                        Appellant,

                                              v.

                                    STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                         Appellee.

                           _____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
                                Barbara J. Leach, Judge.

                                       May 1, 2026

   PER CURIAM.

         AFFIRMED. See Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“[T]he

   Legislature, by prescribing a sentence of life imprisonment, intends that the

   defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life. The term ‘life’ is sufficiently

   definite so that it can be understood and applied.”).

   TRAVER, C.J., and MIZE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.


   Terrelle A. Tullis, Blountstown, pro se.

   James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zachary L. Wiseman,
   Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


     NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
              AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED