Summary of Argument

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) that life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders committing non-homicide offenses violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Appellant Brandon Moore was convicted of non-homicide offenses that he committed as a juvenile and received a sentence that requires him to serve 92 years before he is parole-eligible. Because Mr. Moore would not be eligible for parole until he reaches the unlikely age of 107, his sentence is the functional equivalent of a life without parole and therefore unconstitutional pursuant to Graham. The majority of states that have considered sentences similar to Mr. Moore's have held that extreme term-of-year sentences that are the functional equivalent of "life without parole" sentences violate Graham. This Court, too, should hold that Appellant's sentence - which guarantees that he will die in prison - violates Graham.

The United States Supreme Court has mandated that sentencers undertake anindividualized analysis for children accused of serious crimes in order to ref.lect our society's evolving standards of decency and to take account of our greater understanding of adolescent development. The Court has found that any child who commits non-homicide offenses must have a meaningful opportunity to be released from prison. Accordingly, Amici respectfully requestthat this Court invalidate Appellant Moore's unconstitutional sentence. This will ensure that Ohio is appropriately applying the United States Supreme Court's decisions on juvenilesentencing and that the prohibition on life without parole sentences for non-homicide offenses is not subverted by semantics.

Summary of Argument

The 2010 Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida established that life without parole sentences for non-homicide offenses committed by juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This case argues that Brandon Moore's sentence, which requires him to serve 92 years before he is eligible for parole, effectively constitutes a life without parole sentence and is therefore unconstitutional.

The argument further contends that the majority of states that have reviewed similar cases have concluded that extreme term-of-year sentences, which are functionally equivalent to life without parole, are unconstitutional under Graham. It requests the court to invalidate Moore's sentence on the grounds that it violates Graham and ensures that Ohio adheres to the Supreme Court's rulings on juvenile sentencing. The argument highlights the Supreme Court's emphasis on individualized assessments of juvenile offenders and the importance of providing them with a realistic chance of release from prison. It posits that upholding Moore's sentence would subvert the spirit and intent of Graham.

Summary of Argument

The case of Brandon Moore presents a challenge to the constitutionality of his 92-year sentence for non-homicide offenses committed as a juvenile. The argument centers around the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which declared life without parole sentences for juvenile non-homicide offenders unconstitutional. Moore's sentence, effectively a life sentence, is argued to violate this precedent. The case draws upon the Supreme Court's emphasis on individualized assessment for juvenile offenders and their right to a meaningful chance at release, advocating for the invalidation of Moore's sentence. This invalidation, the argument asserts, would align Ohio's practices with Supreme Court precedent and prevent circumvention of the ban on life without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenses.

Summary of Argument

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile who committed a non-homicide crime is unconstitutional. The court based this ruling on the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

Brandon Moore, the appellant in this case, was convicted of non-homicide crimes committed as a juvenile and sentenced to 92 years before becoming eligible for parole. Since Moore would be 107 years old before he could be considered for parole, his sentence is functionally equivalent to a life without parole sentence.

Many other states have decided that sentences similar to Moore's, where a person would die in prison before being eligible for parole, violate the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida. The court should overturn Moore's sentence and find it unconstitutional because it violates the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida.

The Supreme Court has determined that judges must consider each case individually when sentencing juveniles who have committed serious crimes. These considerations should reflect society's changing values and understanding of the development of young people. The court has found that juveniles who commit non-homicide crimes should have the possibility of being released from prison.

Therefore, the court should overturn Moore's sentence to ensure that Ohio is following the Supreme Court's rulings regarding sentencing juveniles. This would guarantee that the rule against life without parole sentences for non-homicide crimes committed by juveniles is not bypassed by loopholes.

Summary of Argument

In 2010, the highest court in the US said that it's not fair to give a young person who didn't commit murder a sentence of life in prison without the chance to get out. Brandon Moore got a sentence that meant he would be 107 years old before he could be considered for parole. That's basically the same as saying he'll never get out. Other states have said that really long sentences like this are wrong because they're the same as saying someone will die in prison. So, the court should say that Brandon's sentence is wrong because it's too long and breaks the rules.

The highest court also said that judges need to look at each young person's case carefully and think about how kids are different from adults. They said that kids who don't commit murder should have a chance to get out of prison. This court should agree that Brandon's sentence is wrong and should make sure that Ohio is following the rules about giving sentences to young people.