Summary of Argument

In 2010, this Court held in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) that life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders committing nonhomicide offenses violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The Court explained: “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.” Id. at 79. Graham held that a sentence that provides no “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” is unconstitutional. Id.

Petitioners Darien Vasquez and Brandon Valentin were convicted of nonhomicide offenses that they committed as juveniles and received consecutive sentences amounting to 283 years for Vasquez and 148 years for Valentin. Petitioner Vasquez will become eligible for parole after serving 133 years, at age 149. Petitioner Valentin will become eligible for parole after serving 68 years, at age 85. As a practical matter, Petitioners will never become eligible for parole because their sentences exceed their life expectancies. Because Petitioners’ sentences deprive them of a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release,” they are the functional equivalent of life without parole and are unconstitutional despite being labeled as consecutive term-of-years sentences.

The constitutional errors in Petitioners’ sentences are not remedied by Virginia’s geriatric release provision because virtually no prisoners are released under this provision, because life expectancy data indicates that Petitioners will not survive to the age of eligibility, and because geriatric release is not “meaningful” under Graham.

This Court should grant certiorari to resolve the issues of whether consecutive term-of-years sentences constituting de facto life without parole are unconstitutional under Graham and, if so, whether Virginia’s geriatric release statute can remedy this constitutional defect.

Summary of Argument

The case before the Court concerns the constitutionality of consecutive term-of-years sentences for juvenile offenders that effectively amount to life without parole. The petitioners, Darien Vasquez and Brandon Valentin, were convicted of non-homicide offenses committed as juveniles and received consecutive sentences totaling 283 years for Vasquez and 148 years for Valentin, rendering them ineligible for parole within their life expectancies.

The petitioners argue that their sentences, though labeled as term-of-years sentences, are functionally equivalent to life without parole and thus violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as established in Graham v. Florida (2010). The Graham decision held that life without parole sentences for juveniles committing nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional because they deprive individuals of a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release," hindering their potential for rehabilitation and societal reintegration.

The petitioners contend that Virginia's geriatric release provision does not remedy the constitutional flaw in their sentences. This provision is rarely utilized, and life expectancy data suggests that the petitioners will not survive to the age of eligibility for release. The petitioners argue that geriatric release is not a "meaningful" opportunity for release as defined by Graham.

This case presents the Court with the opportunity to clarify the application of Graham to consecutive term-of-years sentences that effectively constitute life without parole. The Court should determine if such sentences are unconstitutional and, if so, whether Virginia's geriatric release statute provides a valid remedy.

Summary of Argument

In the 2010 case Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court emphasized that juveniles should have the opportunity to mature and develop a sense of self-worth and potential, and that life imprisonment without parole denies them any chance of rehabilitation or reintegration into society.

In the present case, Petitioners Vasquez and Valentin, convicted of non-homicide offenses committed as juveniles, received consecutive sentences totaling 283 and 148 years respectively. These sentences, in effect, amount to life without parole as they far exceed their life expectancies and render any chance of release practically impossible. This situation directly contradicts the Graham ruling, which prohibits sentences that deny a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release”.

While Virginia has a geriatric release provision, it is largely ineffective in practice due to its low release rate and the fact that Petitioners are unlikely to live long enough to become eligible. Moreover, geriatric release does not meet the Graham standard of "meaningfulness" in offering a realistic chance for parole.

This case presents the Supreme Court with the critical questions of whether consecutive term-of-years sentences that functionally equate to life without parole violate the Constitution under Graham, and whether Virginia's geriatric release statute can effectively address this constitutional violation.

Summary of Argument

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Graham v. Florida that giving a life sentence without the possibility of parole to a juvenile offender who did not commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court argued that this kind of sentence takes away the chance for a young person to mature and change. They emphasized that a sentence with no opportunity for release is unconstitutional.

Darien Vasquez and Brandon Valentin, who were juveniles when they committed non-homicide offenses, received sentences of 283 and 148 years respectively. These sentences are essentially life without parole because they exceed the likely lifespans of Vasquez and Valentin. They will be eligible for parole after serving 133 and 68 years, respectively, meaning they will never actually be able to be released.

The Court should review this case to determine if these sentences, although presented as consecutive terms of years, are unconstitutional because they effectively equate to life without parole. They should also consider if Virginia's geriatric release provision, which allows for the release of elderly prisoners, can fix this constitutional issue.

Summary of Argument

In 2010, the Supreme Court said that it’s wrong to give kids who haven’t committed murder a sentence of life in prison without the chance to get out. The Court said that kids need a chance to grow up, learn from their mistakes, and be part of society again. They said that giving someone a sentence that’s longer than their life expectancy is like giving them life without parole, which is wrong.

Two kids, Darien and Brandon, got sentences that are so long they will probably never get out of prison. They were convicted of crimes that weren’t murder. Even though their sentences are called “term of years” sentences, they’re really like life without parole because they won’t live long enough to be eligible for release.

There’s a law in Virginia that allows some old prisoners to get released, but it’s not really a good solution because almost no one uses it, and Darien and Brandon probably won’t live long enough to qualify.

The Supreme Court should take this case to decide if giving these kinds of long sentences to kids is wrong and if the Virginia law can fix the problem.