Summary of Argument

Juvenile Law Center writes in support of Appellant's argument that the trial court's imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the Supreme Court's holdings in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012) and Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). 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. Appellant's life without parole sentence is unconstitutional because the court failed to account for how appellant's status as a juvenile counseled against a life without parole sentence. Absent a determination that appellant is among the "uncommon" juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is justified, his sentence must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Summary of Argument

Juvenile Law Center submits an amicus brief in support of the Appellant's argument that the trial court's imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole violates the Supreme Court's holdings in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012) and Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). These decisions established that children are fundamentally distinct from adults and are categorically less deserving of the most severe punishments. Miller mandates individualized sentencing considerations, requiring sentencers to account for a juvenile's overall culpability. The Appellant's life without parole sentence is unconstitutional because the court failed to consider the Appellant's status as a juvenile in determining whether a sentence of life without parole was warranted. Absent a determination that the Appellant is among the exceptional juveniles for whom such a sentence is justifiable, the sentence must afford a meaningful possibility of release.

Summary of Argument

Juvenile Law Center argues that the trial court's life sentence without parole for the Appellant violates the Supreme Court's rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. These rulings established that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults and less deserving of severe punishments. Miller further requires the court to consider the juvenile's overall culpability during sentencing. The Appellant's sentence is deemed unconstitutional because the court failed to assess whether the Appellant's age warranted a life sentence without parole. The Appellant's sentence should provide a path for release, unless it is determined that he falls into the rare category of juveniles deserving such a sentence.

Summary of Argument

The Juvenile Law Center supports the argument that the Appellant's life sentence without parole is unfair, based on Supreme Court rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. The Court recognized that young people are different from adults, and that harsh punishments are not always appropriate for them.

Miller states that a judge must consider each juvenile's individual circumstances before giving a life sentence without parole. The Appellant's sentence is unconstitutional because the court did not take into account his youth. Unless the judge decides the Appellant is an "exceptional" juvenile who deserves a life sentence without parole, the sentence must allow for the possibility of release at some point.

Summary of Argument

A group called the Juvenile Law Center argues that a judge gave a young person a sentence that is too harsh. The group says the judge should have considered the young person's age and other factors before giving such a long sentence. They believe this sentence goes against what the Supreme Court has decided in the past.