Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the United States SupremeCourt held that the mandatory imposition of sentences of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile offenders convicted of murder is unconstitutional. At the time Appellants were sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles, state law mandated a life without parole sentence for their murder-based offenses. As applied to juvenile offenders, this mandatory scheme is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller, which reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments.

Miller applies retroactively to Appellants Carp and Davis and to other eases that have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review. Although Miller also applies retroactively under Michigan state law, Amid focus on Miller's retroactivity under federal law and argue that Miller applies retroactively for four primary reasons. First, the United StatesSupreme Court has already applied Miller retroactively by affording relief in Kuntrell Jackson's case, which was before the Court on collateral review. Second, Miller announced a substantiverule, which pursuant to Supreme Court precedent applies retroactively. Third, even assuming the rule is procedural, Miller is a watershed rule of criminal procedure that applies retroactively. Finally, Miller must be applied retroactively because, once the Court determines that a punishment is cruel and unusual when imposed on a child, any continuing imposition of that sentence is itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment; the date upon which an unconstitutional mandatory life without parole sentence is imposed cannot convert it into a constitutional sentence.

Additionally, the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" found in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution categorically bars the imposition of a life without parole sentence on juvenile offenders convicted solely on the basis of having aided and abetted the commission of a felony murder. Further, any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (holding that a life without parole sentence can never be imposed upon a juvenile when there is no finding that the juvenile either killed or intended to kill). Every child convicted of murder in Michigan must receive an individualized sentence that takes into account his age and individual circumstances and, absent a finding that he is among the rare juveniles for whom life without parole is appropriate, he must be afforded a meaningful opportunity for release based on his demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. See Graham, 560 U.S. 48.

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile murder offenders violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This article examines the retroactive application of Miller and argues that it prohibits life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of felony murder.

Retroactivity of Miller

• Miller applies retroactively under both federal and state law.

• The Supreme Court has applied Miller retroactively in Kuntrell Jackson's case.

• Miller announced a substantive rule, which applies retroactively under Supreme Court precedent.

• Even if Miller is considered procedural, it is a watershed rule that applies retroactively.

• Retroactive application is necessary because continuing to impose unconstitutional sentences violates the Eighth Amendment.

Felony Murder and Juvenile Offenders

• The Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted solely of aiding and abetting felony murder.

• Such sentences are inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research.

• Graham v. Florida (2010) prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles who did not kill or intend to kill.

Conclusion

Juvenile murder offenders in Michigan must receive individualized sentences that consider their age and circumstances. Absent a finding of irredeemable corruption, they must have a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as mandated by Graham.

Summary of Argument

In the landmark case of Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to automatically sentence juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murder convictions.

Before Miller, some states had laws that required judges to impose life sentences without parole on juveniles convicted of murder. However, the Supreme Court recognized that children are different from adults in important ways that make them less deserving of the most severe punishments.

Miller prohibits mandatory life sentences for juvenile murderers and requires that judges consider the individual circumstances of each case before imposing such a sentence. The decision also applies retroactively, meaning that it affects cases that were already final before Miller was decided.

Reasons for Retroactivity

• The Supreme Court has previously applied Miller retroactively in other cases.

• Miller established a new rule of law that applies to all cases, regardless of when they were decided.

• Miller is a significant change in criminal procedure that should be applied retroactively to ensure fairness.

• Continuing to imprison juveniles under unconstitutional life sentences violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment also prohibits life sentences without parole for juveniles who were only involved in a felony murder, where they did not kill or intend to kill anyone. Furthermore, any life sentence for a juvenile must take into account their age, maturity, and potential for rehabilitation, as established in the case of Graham v. Florida (2010).

Summary of Argument

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to automatically sentence teenagers who commit murder to life in prison without the chance of parole. This ruling came in the case of Miller v. Alabama.

Before this ruling, some states had laws that required judges to give life sentences to teens convicted of murder, no matter their age or circumstances. But the Supreme Court decided that this was unfair because teenagers are different from adults.

The Court said that teenagers are less mature and more likely to change than adults. They also pointed out that science shows that teenage brains are still developing. Because of these differences, the Court ruled that it's cruel and unusual punishment to lock up teenagers for life without any hope of getting out.

This ruling means that teenagers who commit murder will now have a chance to prove that they deserve a second chance. Judges will have to consider the teenager's age, background, and other factors before deciding on a sentence.

The Court also ruled that it's unconstitutional to sentence teenagers to life without parole for helping someone else commit murder, even if they didn't actually kill anyone. They said that teenagers who commit these crimes should still have a chance to show that they can change and become productive members of society.

Summary of Argument

In a big case called Miller v. Alabama, the highest court in the United States said that it's not fair to automatically give kids who commit murder life in jail without the chance to ever get out.

The court said that kids are different from adults and don't deserve the worst punishments. They also said that every kid who commits murder should get a sentence that looks at their age and situation.

This means that kids who commit murder won't automatically get life in jail without parole anymore. Instead, they'll get a sentence that takes into account how old they are and what happened. And unless they're one of the very few kids who the court says deserves it, they'll have a chance to get out of jail someday if they can show that they've changed and become better people.

The court also said that kids who help someone else commit murder shouldn't get life in jail without parole either. They said that it's not fair to punish kids so harshly for something they didn't do themselves.