Amicus Brief of the District Attorneys for the Second and Eighteenth Judicial Districts
Robert J. Whitley
Mitchell R. Morrissey
L. Andrew Cooper
George H. Brauchler
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In Miller v. Alabama, the court made a new procedural rule, but it's not a major change ("watershed"). Therefore, it doesn't apply to people already convicted who are now trying to challenge their convictions.

Share Resource

2015 | State Juristiction

Amicus Brief of the District Attorneys for the Second and Eighteenth Judicial Districts

Keywords collateral review; Miller; mandatory life without parole; watershed rule; retroactive application; resentencing; juvenile offenders
image

Summary of Argument

Miller v. Alabama created a non-watershed, procedural rule, so it does not apply retroactively to convictions on collateral review. The arguments for retroactivity in Vigil’s answer brief are unpersuasive and should be rejected. Offenders whose convictions were final at the time Miller was announced therefore must serve out their sentences of life without parole.

If this Court instead deems Miller to be retroactive, the offenders should receive a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the court should consider the circumstances of the offender and the offense, and determine whether a sentence of life without parole is an appropriate and just consequence. If so, the court should impose it. If, on the other hand, the court concludes that lifetime parole ineligibility is not appropriate, the court should impose a life sentence with the possibility of parole after forty calendar years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibited mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. The reasoning for this conclusion is that Miller established a non-watershed, procedural rule, not a substantive rule of criminal procedure. Accordingly, Miller does not apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions were final prior to its announcement.

If this Court determines that Miller should apply retroactively, then defendants whose sentences were finalized prior to Miller should be granted a sentencing hearing. At such hearing, the court should consider the unique circumstances of the defendant and the crime committed to determine whether a sentence of life without parole remains an appropriate and just punishment. If so, the court should uphold the sentence. If not, then the court should impose a life sentence with the possibility of parole after forty calendar years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for minors unconstitutional, is not a watershed or procedural rule and therefore should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. Arguments for applying Miller retroactively, such as those presented in Vigil, are not persuasive and should be rejected. Individuals whose convictions were finalized before Miller was announced should continue to serve their sentences of life without parole.

If the Court determines that Miller should be applied retroactively, these offenders should be granted a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the court should consider the circumstances of the offense and the individual, assessing whether life without parole is a just and appropriate consequence. If the court finds it is, then that sentence should be imposed. If the court determines that life without parole is not fitting, a life sentence with the possibility of parole after forty years should be imposed instead.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama established a new rule about sentencing for crimes committed by minors. This rule does not apply to cases that were already decided before Miller was decided. This means that people who were convicted of crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole before Miller are still subject to that sentence.

If the Court were to decide that Miller does apply retroactively, then people who were previously sentenced to life without parole would be entitled to a new sentencing hearing. At this hearing, the court would consider the individual circumstances of the offender and the crime. The court would then decide if a sentence of life without parole is appropriate or if a different sentence is more just. If the court decides that life without parole is appropriate, the offender will still serve that sentence. However, if the court determines that life without parole is not appropriate, the offender could be sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The case of Miller v. Alabama said that giving kids life in prison without parole is not fair. However, this rule doesn't change the way old cases were handled. So, if someone got sentenced to life without parole before this case, they still have to stay in prison.

If the court decides to change the way old cases are handled, those people should get a new hearing. At the hearing, a judge will look at how the crime happened and what the person who did it is like. Then, the judge will decide if life without parole is the right punishment. If it is, the person will stay in prison. If it's not the right punishment, the judge will let the person have a chance to get out of prison after forty years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Amicus Brief of the District Attorneys for the Second and Eighteenth Judicial Districts in Support of Petitioner, People v. Vigil, No. 2014SC495 (Colo. Mar. 2, 2015).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights