Summary of Argument

This case involved a single act of extreme violence committed by an intoxicated teenager with no criminal record. His relatives struggled to understand how this could have happened. (4 RT 863-864, 866.) The probation officer's assessment was that he was at relatively low risk of committing a new sexual offense. (POR 17 .) Nothing in the record suggested that Luis suffers from "clearly unsalvageable depravity." (Miller, 132 S. Ct. at p. 2469.) The factors most contributing to his out of control behavior in the offense - immaturity and substance abuse - are things that generally change with maturity.

The trial court in this case failed to consider whether "as the years go by and neurological development occurs, his deficiencies will be reformed." (Miller, 132 S.Ct. at p. 2465.) Whether this was because the court viewed section 190.5 as mandatory, orsimply failed to consider the characteristics of the offender, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole was improper. As Miller observed, "the distinctive attributes of youth diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders, even when they commit terrible crimes." (Ibid.) While a state is not required to provide eventual freedom, "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" should be offered. (Id. at p. 2469.) For each and all of the foregoing reasons, we urge the Court to find that the life without the possibility of parole sentence in this case was improper.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a juvenile offender who committed a single act of extreme violence while intoxicated. The offender had no prior criminal record and was assessed as having a relatively low risk of reoffending. The trial court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, failing to consider the potential for the offender's immaturity and substance abuse issues to be mitigated over time. This sentence is improper given the offender's lack of prior criminal history, the absence of evidence of "clearly unsalvageable depravity," and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court's failure to consider the developmental characteristics of youth and their capacity for change is a violation of established legal precedent. The Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama recognized that the "distinctive attributes of youth diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders, even when they commit terrible crimes." Therefore, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender should only be imposed in cases where there is clear evidence of "unsalvageable depravity."

This case presents an opportunity for the court to reaffirm the principle that even juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes should be given a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation. The court should consider the offender's potential for change and ensure that the sentence imposed is consistent with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a juvenile offender who committed a violent crime while intoxicated. The offender had no prior criminal record and was assessed as having a relatively low risk of re-offending. The court sentenced the offender to life without the possibility of parole, failing to consider the possibility of rehabilitation and the mitigating factors of youth and substance abuse. The court's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which recognized the unique characteristics of youth and the need for opportunities for rehabilitation. Given the offender's lack of criminal history, low risk of re-offending, and the potential for future rehabilitation, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is considered improper.

Summary of Argument

This case involved a teenager who committed a very serious crime while under the influence of alcohol. He had no prior criminal history, and his family was shocked by what happened. A probation officer determined that he was unlikely to commit another similar crime. There was no evidence that this teenager was a hopeless case. His actions were likely due to immaturity and substance abuse, issues that usually improve as people mature.

The court did not consider whether this teenager's behavior would change over time as he grew older. It's unclear whether the court thought it had to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole or simply didn't consider the teenager's age and development. A life sentence was inappropriate because young people are different than adults, and they may be able to change and learn from their mistakes. The state doesn't have to guarantee freedom, but it should offer a way for people to earn their release based on their maturity and progress in rehabilitation. For all of these reasons, the sentence in this case should be overturned.

Summary of Argument

This story is about a teenager who committed a very serious crime. They were drunk and did not have a criminal history. The person who watches over them said they were not likely to do this again.

The court did not think about if the person would change over time and become less likely to do bad things. This means the court gave the wrong sentence. The court should have thought about how young people can change, and that very harsh punishments are not always the right answer.