Summary of Argument

Amicus Juvenile Law Center writes in support of Appellant’s motion for panel rehearing or, in the alternative, rehearing en banc on the question as to whether Appellant’s life without parole sentence violates the Supreme Court’s holdings in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).

Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller requires the sentencer to make an individualized sentencing determination based on a juvenile's overall culpability. The scope and extent of the holding in Miller is a critical national issue and requires thorough briefing and consideration.

Summary of Argument

Amicus Juvenile Law Center advocates for the Appellant's motion for panel rehearing or, alternatively, a rehearing en banc on the question of whether the Appellant's life without parole sentence violates the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama. Miller reaffirms the Supreme Court's recognition of the fundamental differences between children and adults, leading to the conclusion that children are categorically less deserving of the most severe punishments. Miller necessitates an individualized sentencing determination based on the juvenile's overall culpability. The scope and significance of Miller's holding as a critical national issue warrant comprehensive legal analysis and thorough consideration.

Summary of Argument

Amicus Juvenile Law Center supports Appellant's request for a panel rehearing or, if that fails, a rehearing en banc. The organization argues that Appellant's life without parole sentence is incompatible with the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which established that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults and therefore less deserving of the most severe punishments.

Miller mandates that sentencing courts consider a juvenile's individual circumstances and culpability when imposing a sentence. The significance of Miller is nationwide and requires comprehensive examination and argumentation.

Summary of Argument

Amicus Juvenile Law Center argues that a life without parole sentence for a juvenile is against the Supreme Court's rulings in the Miller case. The Miller case recognized that juveniles are different from adults and shouldn't automatically receive the most severe punishments.

The court in Miller says that a judge must carefully consider a juvenile's actions and overall responsibility before sentencing them. The legal implications of the Miller ruling are significant and need to be thoroughly examined.

Summary of Argument

This case is about a young person who was sentenced to life in prison without the chance of ever getting out. The Juvenile Law Center wants the court to review this decision.

The Supreme Court has said that young people are different from adults and shouldn't get the harshest punishments. The court wants to know about the young person's actions and how responsible they were before making a decision about their sentence. This is a big question that needs to be looked at carefully.