Summary of Argument

Deshawn Terrell was convicted of one count of murder with a three-year firearm specification and one count of aggravated robbery arising from a robbery he was involved in when he was seventeen years old. Mr. Terrell received a sentence of 21 years to life, including a mandatory sentence of 15 to life arising from the murder conviction. There is no evidence that demonstrates Mr. Terrell killed or intended to kill the victim: in fact, video evidence showed that he ran outside before his co-defendant shot the victim. This case raises fundamental questions about the fairness of sentencing juveniles to harsh and lengthy sentences under theories of imputed or transferred intent in light of the developmental and neuroscientific findings that led this Court to determine that juvenile offenders are less culpable than their adult counterparts. The impropriety of Mr. Terrell’s sentence is further magnified because it was imposed due to a mandatory prosecution in the adult court, which led to a mandatory sentence. This sentencing scheme precluded the sentencing court from giving any weight to Mr. Terrell’s youth or diminished culpability, as required by this Court.

Amici support Mr. Terrell’s principal argument that any mandatory sentence imposed on a young person is unconstitutional if the defendant is not afforded the protections set forth by this Court in Miller v. Alabama. Amici write separately to underscore Mr. Terrell’s assertion that juveniles must not be sentenced to lengthy or life terms under a conviction for felony murder. We urge this court to remand this case because evidence, rooted in law and science, demonstrates that young people should not be held liable under the theory of felony murder.

Summary of Argument

The case of Deshawn Terrell raises concerns about the constitutionality of imposing severe sentences on juvenile offenders under the felony murder doctrine. Terrell was convicted of murder and aggravated robbery despite evidence suggesting he did not directly cause the victim's death. His mandatory sentence of 21 years to life highlights the problematic nature of mandatory sentencing schemes for juveniles.

Amici argue that mandatory sentences for juveniles violate the principles established in Miller v. Alabama, which recognized the diminished culpability of juvenile offenders due to their developmental immaturity and neurological differences. They contend that felony murder convictions should not result in lengthy or life sentences for juveniles.

Scientific evidence supports the notion that juveniles have a reduced capacity for decision-making, impulse control, and understanding the consequences of their actions. This diminished culpability should be considered in sentencing.

The case of Deshawn Terrell underscores the need to reconsider the application of felony murder charges to juveniles. Evidence from law and science demonstrates that such charges are inappropriate and result in unjust and disproportionate sentences. The court is urged to remand the case and ensure that juvenile offenders receive fair and individualized sentencing that takes into account their developmental stage and reduced culpability.

Summary of Argument

Deshawn Terrell, a 17-year-old, was sentenced to 21 years to life in prison for his involvement in a robbery that resulted in a murder. Although video evidence showed that Terrell did not commit the murder, he was convicted under the theory of felony murder, which holds individuals responsible for deaths that occur during the commission of a felony.

Terrell's case raises concerns about the fairness of sentencing juveniles to lengthy prison terms under felony murder laws. Studies in neuroscience and development have shown that juveniles are less culpable than adults due to their immature brains and decision-making abilities.

Additionally, Terrell's sentence was imposed through a mandatory prosecution scheme that did not allow the court to consider his youth or diminished culpability. This violates the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which requires individualized sentencing for juveniles.

Advocacy groups argue that juveniles should not be held liable under felony murder laws. They urge the court to reconsider Terrell's case, highlighting the scientific and legal evidence that supports the need for more appropriate sentencing for young offenders.

Summary of Argument

What Happened?

Deshawn Terrell, a 17-year-old, was charged with murder and robbery. He was sentenced to 21 years to life in prison, even though he didn't kill anyone. Video footage shows that he left the scene before the victim was shot by his friend.

Why is This Unfair?

• Young people are less responsible for their actions than adults, according to science and the law.

• Deshawn's sentence was automatically decided because he was tried as an adult.

• This meant that the court couldn't consider his age or reduced responsibility.

Groups Supporting Deshawn

Groups are arguing that:

• It's unconstitutional to give young people mandatory sentences without considering their age and responsibility.

• Young people shouldn't be held responsible for murder if they didn't commit it or intend for it to happen.

They want the court to send Deshawn's case back for a new sentence that takes into account his youth and the fact that he didn't kill anyone.

Summary of Argument

What Happened?

Deshawn Terrell was only 17 when he was involved in a robbery. During the robbery, his friend shot and killed someone. Even though Deshawn didn't shoot the person and ran away before it happened, he was still found guilty of murder and robbery.

Why is This Unfair?

Deshawn was sentenced to a very long time in prison, even though he didn't kill anyone. This is because the law says that if someone dies during a robbery, everyone involved is guilty of murder. But scientists have shown that teenagers' brains are still developing, and they don't always understand the consequences of their actions like adults do.

Also, Deshawn was automatically tried as an adult, which meant he couldn't get a shorter sentence because he was young.

What Should Happen?

Deshawn's friends believe that his sentence is too harsh and that he shouldn't be held responsible for murder because he didn't kill anyone. They want the court to give him a new sentence that is fairer for someone his age.