Summary of Argument

But for strikes committed when they were between 18 and 21 years old, Mr. Moretti, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Orr would not be serving life without parole sentences under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). This Court could accept the artificial boundary of the eighteenth birthday and decide that because the strike offenses occurred when Mr. Moretti, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Orr were over 18 years of age, these individuals must serve life without parole—the harshest punishment under Washington’s criminal law. Or, this Court could again embrace emerging science to apply justice and recognize, as it did in State v. O’Dell, that the intrinsic nature of youth extends beyond the eighteenth birthday. 183 Wn.2d 680, 358 P.3d 359 (2015). Because at least one of the strike offenses occurred when they were less culpable and therefore “less deserving of the most severe punishments,” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 58, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), Petitioners ask the Court to determine that their punishment is disproportionate and therefore cruel, in violation of article I, section 14.

Amicus presents three points highlighting that under article I, section 14, a categorical bar of youthful strikes—strike offenses committed between the ages of 18 and 21—is doctrinally sound. First, courts and legislatures around the nation have responded to a growing body of science that the mitigating qualities of youth extend to at least 21 years old, and this trend should inform the Court’s understanding of the categorical bar analysis. Second, just as individual proportionality review of persistent offender punishment under article I, section 14 encompasses all strikes, so must categorical proportionality review of persistent offender punishment—making salient Petitioners’ youth at the time of each strike. Third, characterization of recidivist schemes as punishment for only the last strike is inapposite in the context of proportionality review. Amicus discusses an inconsistency within this Court’s article I, section 14 persistent offender proportionality jurisprudence that reviews all strikes, yet characterizes recidivist schemes as punishment for only the last strike by citing State v. Lee, 87 Wn.2d 932, 558 P.2d 236 (1976). The cases on which Lee relies for this rule are not grounded in proportionality analysis, and are instead decisions upholding early habitual offender statutes against challenges based on double jeopardy, due process, and ex post facto protections.

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that the Washington State Court should recognize that the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) violates the state's constitutional prohibition against cruel punishment when applied to individuals who committed their strike offenses between the ages of 18 and 21. The brief asserts that the Court should consider emerging scientific evidence demonstrating the developmental immaturity of individuals under the age of 21, and extend the protections previously afforded to individuals under 18 to those between 18 and 21.

The brief presents three arguments in support of its position. First, it contends that the Court should consider the national trend of recognizing the mitigating qualities of youth extending beyond the age of 18 in criminal justice reform. Second, the brief argues that the Court's proportionality review of persistent offender punishment should consider the age of the individual at the time of all strike offenses, not just the most recent. Third, the brief challenges the Court's characterization of recidivist schemes as punishment for only the last strike, arguing that this approach is inconsistent with the proportionality analysis used in persistent offender cases.

Summary of Argument

Mr. Moretti, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Orr are serving life without parole sentences under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) due to strikes committed when they were between 18 and 21 years old. The petitioners argue their punishment is disproportionate and therefore cruel, in violation of article I, section 14 of the Washington State Constitution.

This case presents the court with a choice: to accept the traditional age of 18 as the dividing line between adulthood and youth, or to acknowledge the scientific understanding of youth's developmental trajectory extending beyond 18 years old. The petitioners argue that the court should consider the mitigating qualities of youth extending to at least 21 years old, as supported by emerging science and recognized by courts and legislatures nationwide.

The petitioners challenge the Court's current proportionality analysis, arguing that recidivist schemes, such as the POAA, are not just punishment for the last strike, but for all strikes, making the youthfulness of the petitioners at the time of each strike relevant. They further argue that the Court's reliance on State v. Lee for characterizing recidivist schemes as punishment for only the last strike is misplaced, as the cases upon which Lee relies do not address proportionality analysis.

Summary of Argument

Mr. Moretti, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Orr are serving life without parole sentences under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) due to strikes committed when they were between 18 and 21 years old. The Court has the option to uphold the current law and require them to serve their sentences or consider new scientific evidence regarding the development of the brain and the mitigating factors of youth.

The Court has previously recognized that the qualities of youth extend beyond the 18th birthday in the case State v. O’Dell. The petitioners argue that the severity of their punishment is disproportionate to their actions and therefore violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Washington State Constitution.

The argument in favor of the petitioners is presented in three points:

• Emerging science: Courts and legislatures are increasingly acknowledging that the qualities of youth extend to at least age 21. This trend should influence the Court's understanding of the categorical bar analysis.

• Proportionality Review: The Court should consider the youthfulness of the petitioners at the time of each strike, not just the last one, when reviewing the proportionality of their punishment.

• Recidivist schemes: Recidivist schemes, like the POAA, are not just about the most recent crime. They are about the totality of an individual's criminal history, and therefore all strikes should be considered when determining proportionality.

Summary of Argument

Mr. Moretti, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Orr are serving life without parole because of something called the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). This law says that if you commit a certain amount of crimes prior to the age of 18, if you commit another crime after you turn 18, you could get life in prison without ever getting out. These three men committed crimes when they were between 18 and 21 years old.

The Court could say that the law is fair because the men were over 18 when they committed the crimes. Or, the Court could agree with scientists who say that young adults' brains are still developing and they aren't fully responsible for their actions until they are at least 21 years old.

The men are asking the Court to say that their punishment is too harsh and goes against the law because it is cruel and unusual.