Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory imposition of sentences of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile offenders convicted of murder is unconstitutional. Miller applies retroactively to Appellants. Miller announced a substantive rule, which pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent applies retroactively. Further, even assuming the rule is procedural, Miller is a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively. Moreover, Miller must be applied retroactively because continuing imposition of mandatory life without parole sentences on Appellants sentence is itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment; the date upon which a mandatory life without parole sentence is imposed cannot convert it into a constitutional sentence. Concerns with finality should not deny Appellants an opportunity to be resentenced; their interest in receiving a constitutional sentence outweighs interests in finality.

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders convicted of murder are unconstitutional. This ruling has retroactive application to the Appellants in the present case. The Supreme Court's decision in Miller established a substantive rule, which, according to precedent, should be applied retroactively. Even if the rule were considered procedural, its significance as a watershed ruling in criminal procedure necessitates retroactive application. Continuing to impose mandatory life without parole sentences on the Appellants constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the date of sentencing. The date of sentencing cannot retroactively legitimize an unconstitutional sentence. While concerns regarding finality may arise, the Appellants' interest in receiving a constitutional sentence outweighs the interest in finality. Consequently, the Appellants should be given the opportunity to be resentenced.

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama addressed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of murder. The court ruled that such sentences were unconstitutional. This decision, Miller, applies retroactively to Appellants in this case.

The Miller decision established a substantive rule, which according to Supreme Court precedent, applies retroactively. Even if it were considered a procedural rule, Miller qualifies as a watershed rule of criminal procedure, meaning it also applies retroactively. Additionally, continuing to impose mandatory life without parole sentences on Appellants violates the Eighth Amendment. The date of imposition cannot change the unconstitutionality of such a sentence. Concerns about finality do not outweigh the Appellants' right to a constitutional sentence. Therefore, they must be given the opportunity to be resentenced.

Summary of Argument

In the case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court decided that it is against the Constitution to automatically give a life sentence without the chance of parole to people who were younger than 18 when they committed murder. This ruling, known as Miller, applies to people who were sentenced before it was decided.

The Supreme Court has said that rulings like Miller should be applied to cases that happened before the ruling was made. Even if Miller is considered a rule about how to run a trial, it's a very important one that changes how the legal system works.

Miller must be applied to people who got life without parole sentences because continuing to give these sentences violates the Eighth Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. The date someone is sentenced doesn't change whether a sentence is constitutional or not.

The fact that a sentence has already been finalized shouldn't stop someone from having a chance to be sentenced again. The right to a constitutional sentence is more important than the need for finality.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court decided in the case of Miller v. Alabama that it is against the law to automatically sentence young people to life in prison without the chance of parole if they are found guilty of murder. This ruling applies to cases that happened before the ruling was made. This is because the Supreme Court's decision is a major change in the way the law works, and it needs to be applied to everyone, even if their case has already been decided. It's important to give these young people a chance to be sentenced again in a way that follows the law, even if their case is already closed.