Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that children are categorically different from adults for purposes of criminal sentencing, and this Court has recently stressed that "youth and its attendant circumstances are strong mitigating factors." Ohio v. Long, 138 Ohio St. 3d 478, 487 (2014). Consequently, because a "juvenile offender who did not kill or intend to kill has a twice diminished moral culpability, ... the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile for a nonhomicide offense." Id. at 481 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 (2010)).

These essential constitutional and human realities—namely, that juveniles who commit criminal offenses are not as culpable for their acts as adults are and are more amenable to reform, Long, 138 Ohio St. 3d at 488—preclude functional as well as formal life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted only of nonhomicide offenses. Because the U.S. Constitution requires that every Ohio juvenile nonhomicide offender be afforded "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation," Graham, 560 U.S. at 75 (emphasis added), this Court must invalidate any sentence like Brandon Moore's that amounts to a de facto life sentence due to its length and the complete lack of any parole eligibility until many decades after his reasonable life expectancy.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed just how long a juvenile's term-of-years sentence must be to be unconstitutional, courts have recognized that extreme term-of-year sentences like the one imposed on Brandon Moore cannot be used to circumvent the limits of the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., California v. Caballero, 55 Cal. 4th 262 (2012); Iowa v. Ragland, 836 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2013). In addition, amicus curiae NACDL suggests that this Court consider utilizing this case to give the Ohio Constitution distinctive force and meaning by providing Ohio courts and litigants guidance pursuant to Article I, Section 9 concerning just how "courts must treat youths who commit murders and other serious crimes differently from adults who commit those same crimes." Long, 138 Ohio St. 3d at 488 (O'Connor, C.J., concurring) (emphasis added).

Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged the fundamental distinction between children and adults in the context of criminal sentencing. This distinction underscores the unique considerations inherent in juvenile justice, particularly the recognition that youth presents a mitigating factor in culpability and sentencing. The Court has established that juveniles are less morally responsible for their actions compared to adults and possess greater potential for reform. Consequently, the Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing life-without-parole sentences on juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses.

These constitutional principles preclude both formal and functional life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted solely of nonhomicide offenses. The Eighth Amendment mandates that every juvenile nonhomicide offender in Ohio be granted "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Therefore, this Court must invalidate sentences, such as the one imposed on Brandon Moore, that effectively constitute life sentences due to their excessive length and lack of parole eligibility for several decades beyond a reasonable life expectancy.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not definitively determined the precise length at which a term-of-years sentence for juveniles becomes unconstitutional, courts have acknowledged that extreme sentences, like the one imposed on Brandon Moore, cannot be employed to evade the limitations of the Eighth Amendment. Moreover, amicus curiae NACDL advocates that this Court utilize this case to provide distinct force and meaning to the Ohio Constitution by offering guidance to Ohio courts and litigants under Article I, Section 9 regarding the treatment of juveniles who commit serious crimes. This guidance should emphasize the distinct approach required when sentencing juveniles as compared to adults who commit the same crimes.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has determined that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults when it comes to criminal sentencing. This difference in culpability and potential for rehabilitation is a mitigating factor that prohibits the imposition of life-without-parole sentences for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses. While the Court has not specified a maximum term-of-years sentence that would be considered unconstitutional, the current case presents an opportunity to clarify the constitutional boundaries of sentencing for juvenile non-homicide offenders. This case could further emphasize the unique protections afforded to juveniles under the Ohio Constitution, reinforcing the principle of differential treatment for youth who commit crimes.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court recognizes that young people are different from adults when it comes to punishment for crimes. They have said that the Constitution prohibits life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles who haven't committed murder. This is because juveniles are not as responsible for their actions as adults and have a better chance of being rehabilitated.

These legal principles mean that sentences for non-violent crimes that are so long that they effectively amount to life sentences are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has not yet decided exactly how long a sentence is too long for a juvenile, but other courts have said that extreme sentences like the one given to Brandon Moore are not acceptable.

This case is an opportunity for the Ohio court to clarify how long of a sentence is allowed for juveniles under Ohio's Constitution. This would provide guidance to judges and lawyers in future cases involving juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court says that kids are different from adults when it comes to punishment. It says that because kids are still growing and learning, they are not as responsible for their actions as adults. This means that the Supreme Court says kids can't be given a sentence of life in prison without the chance of getting out, especially if they didn't kill someone.

The Supreme Court also said that kids who are in trouble need a chance to show they are getting better and that they can be good people again. It's important that kids have a chance to be released from prison based on how they grow and change.

This case is important because it asks the question of how long a sentence can be for a kid who hasn't killed anyone before it becomes too long and doesn't give them a real chance to change. The Court might decide that really long sentences for kids are not allowed because it goes against the rules set by the Constitution.