The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished against the imposition of juvenile life sentences without consideration of the hallmark characteristics of youth. “The juvenile should not be deprived of the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self- recognition of human worth and potential. . . . Life in prison without the possibility of parole gives no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope.” Graham v Florida, 560 US 48, 79; 130 S Ct 2011; 176 L Ed 2d 825 (2010); see also Miller v Alabama, 567 US 460, 479; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). A sentence imposed on a child in a nonhomicide case, whether formally labeled life without parole or not, is unconstitutional if it fails to provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 US at 75. This meaningful opportunity for release must also be provided to juvenile homicide offenders—except in the rarest of cases where the sentencer has determined, after giving mitigating effect to the circumstances and characteristics of youth, that the child is irreparably corrupt. Montgomery v Alabama, 136 S Ct 718, 733; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016).

Michigan courts are now resentencing all youth who were unconstitutionally sentenced to life without any possibility of parole. See MCL 769.25, 769.25a. Retroactive correction of the sentence to die in prison is precisely what the Eighth Amendment requires. Montgomery, 136 S Ct at 718. But for individuals like petitioner, Montez Stovall—who pled guilty as a youth in exchange for the chance of receiving parole—the possibility of living outside of prison walls is likely foreclosed. Like other people sentenced to life with the theoretical possibility of parole for childhood offenses, Mr. Stovall has no meaningful opportunity for release, which is what the Eighth Amendment requires. No court has considered the mitigating circumstances of Mr. Stovall’s youth at the time of his offense, or whether Mr. Stovall is irreparably corrupt or permanently incorrigible such that he may constitutionally serve a sentence of life without parole or its equivalent. Instead, Mr. Stovall is at the mercy of the Michigan Parole Board (the “Board”), which is not required to consider his youth at the time of the crime, or his post-crime maturity and rehabilitation, but instead exercises unfettered discretion in deciding whether even to consider an application for release review. Moreover, the Board’s stated “life means life”approach denies a realistic chance at release—only the smallest percentage of parolable lifers in Michigan are ever granted parole.

This system, which denies review to a population that science confirms will mature and reform with age, contravenes the clear constitutional mandate that juvenile offenders receive a “realistic” and “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 US at 75, 82. This Court should grant leave to appeal to ensure that Michigan’s sentencing and parole system provides the realistic and meaningful opportunity for release to which Mr. Stovall is constitutionally entitled.

Summary

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that juvenile life sentences without consideration of the unique characteristics of youth violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In a series of landmark decisions, the Court has recognized that juveniles possess a diminished culpability and a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults.

The Constitutional Mandate

In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court ruled that life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses imposed on juveniles are unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that such sentences deprive juveniles of "the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential." Similarly, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court extended this principle to homicide offenses, holding that a mandatory life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender is unconstitutional.

The Court further clarified its position in Montgomery v. Alabama (2016), stating that even in homicide cases, juvenile offenders must be provided with a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." This opportunity must be available to all juvenile offenders except in the "rarest of cases" where the offender is deemed "irreparably corrupt."

The Michigan Context

In response to these Supreme Court rulings, Michigan has enacted legislation allowing for the resentencing of juveniles who were previously sentenced to life without parole. However, for individuals who pleaded guilty in exchange for the possibility of parole, the prospect of release remains uncertain.

The Case of Montez Stovall

The case of Montez Stovall highlights the deficiencies in Michigan's current sentencing and parole system. Stovall, who was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole as a juvenile, has no guarantee of a meaningful opportunity for release. The Michigan Parole Board has broad discretion in determining whether to grant parole, and its "life means life" approach has resulted in a very low rate of parole for lifers.

The Need for Reform

Stovall's case demonstrates the need for a system that provides juvenile offenders with a realistic and meaningful opportunity for release. The current system, which relies heavily on the discretion of the Parole Board, fails to meet the constitutional mandate established by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

To ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment, Michigan must reform its sentencing and parole system to provide juvenile offenders with a genuine opportunity for rehabilitation and release. This requires a consideration of the mitigating circumstances of youth and an assessment of the offender's maturity and potential for redemption.

Summary

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to life in prison without considering their unique characteristics as young people. These characteristics include their potential for growth, maturity, and rehabilitation.

In cases where a juvenile is not convicted of murder, any sentence that effectively amounts to life without parole is unconstitutional. This is because it denies them a "meaningful opportunity" to be released based on their progress towards maturity and rehabilitation.

Even in cases of juvenile homicide, the Supreme Court has ruled that life without parole is only appropriate in the "rarest of cases" where the juvenile is found to be "irreparably corrupt."

In Michigan, courts are now reviewing the sentences of juveniles who were previously sentenced to life without parole. However, for those who pleaded guilty in exchange for the possibility of parole, like Montez Stovall, the chance of release is very slim.

The Michigan Parole Board, which decides whether to grant parole, is not required to consider the juvenile's age or rehabilitation efforts. Instead, they have broad discretion and often deny parole to those serving life sentences.

This system violates the constitutional rights of juvenile offenders by denying them a realistic chance at release based on their demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. The Supreme Court should intervene to ensure that Michigan's sentencing and parole system provides this opportunity to all juvenile offenders, including Mr. Stovall.

Summary

The Supreme Court has said that it's wrong to sentence kids to life in prison without thinking about how young they are. They believe that kids should have a chance to grow up and change.

In Michigan, kids who were sentenced to life without parole are now getting new sentences. But for kids like Montez Stovall, who agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a chance at parole, that chance is almost gone.

Even though kids can theoretically get parole, it's very rare. The Parole Board doesn't have to consider how young the kids were when they committed their crimes or how much they've changed since then. They can just decide not to give them parole.

This goes against the Constitution, which says that kids should have a "meaningful opportunity" to get out of prison if they can show that they've grown and changed.

Montez Stovall deserves a chance to show that he's not the same person he was when he was a kid. He deserves a chance at a life outside of prison.

Summary

Kids Are Different from Adults

When kids do something wrong, they should be punished. But the Supreme Court says that kids should not be sentenced to life in jail without a chance to get out. This is because kids are still growing and changing, and they can learn from their mistakes.

A Chance to Prove They've Changed

If a kid is sentenced to life in jail, they should have a chance to show that they have grown up and become better people. This chance should be real, not just something that looks good on paper.

The Problem in Michigan

In Michigan, kids who were sentenced to life in jail are now getting new sentences. But some of these kids, like Montez Stovall, were promised a chance to get out of jail if they behaved well. Now, they might never get that chance.

What Needs to Happen

The courts need to make sure that kids like Montez Stovall have a real chance to get out of jail. They need to think about how young these kids were when they did something wrong, and how much they have changed since then.

Only the worst kids, who will never change, should be kept in jail for life. Everyone else deserves a chance to prove that they can be good citizens.