Summary of Argument

In 2009, Rodrigo Caballero was found guilty on three counts of attempted murder with special enhancements and was sentenced to three consecutive life terms totaling 110 years to life. Caballero committed the offenses at age 16, was sentenced at age 18, and his earliest eligible parole date is June 5, 2112 when he will.be 122 years of age;1 As such, he will not be eligible for parole in his lifetime and was thus .sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without parole, i.e., he will die in prison.2 The United States Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010) requires that this sentence be vacated.

The Supreme Court ruled in Graham that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without a meaningful and realistic opportunity for re-entry into society prior to the expiration o f their sentence for non-homicide offenses. Id. at 2010. The Court explained: The juvenile should not be deprived of the opporturiity to achieve maturity ofjudgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential. ... Life in prison without the possibility of parole gives no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope. Id. at 2032. Graham therefore held that a sentence that provides no "meaningful opportunity to obtain release" before the end of the term is unconstitutional. Id at 2033. Here, Appellant was sentenced to remain in prison until he is approximately 122 years old for non-homicide offenses for which he was charged when he was a juvenile. Because this ·sentence means that Petitioner will unquestionably die in prison before any possibility of release, it is unconstitutional under Graham.

Summary of Argument

In Caballero (2009), Rodrigo Caballero, a juvenile offender, was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to an effective life sentence without parole. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida (2010) mandates the reconsideration of such sentences.

Graham established that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses without a "meaningful and realistic opportunity" for societal reintegration before the sentence expires. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing juveniles to develop maturity and recognize their potential.

In Caballero's case, his sentence of 110 years to life, with an earliest parole eligibility date at age 122, effectively amounts to a death sentence. This violates the principle established in Graham, as it deprives Caballero of any meaningful chance of release and rehabilitation.

Therefore, in light of Graham, Caballero's sentence must be vacated, highlighting the significant impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on the sentencing of juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

In 2009, Rodrigo Caballero, a 16-year-old at the time of the offense, was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 110 years in prison. His earliest parole date was set for 2112, when he would be 122 years old, effectively making it a life sentence without parole.

The Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida established that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses without a "meaningful and realistic opportunity" for release. The Court recognized that juveniles have a greater capacity for rehabilitation and that depriving them of hope and the chance to reintegrate into society is unconstitutional.

Based on the Graham ruling, Caballero's sentence is unconstitutional because it denies him any possibility of release before the end of his life. The sentence effectively amounts to life without parole, which is not permissible for non-homicide offenses committed by juveniles.

The Graham v. Florida decision requires that juvenile offenders be given a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation and re-entry into society. Sentences that effectively impose life without parole for non-homicide offenses violate this principle and are therefore unconstitutional.

Summary of Argument

In 2009, 16-year-old Rodrigo Caballero tried to kill three people. He was found guilty and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, a total of 110 years. He wouldn't be able to get out until he was 122 years old, so he would basically die in prison.

But the Supreme Court said this was wrong. In a case called Graham v. Florida, they ruled that teens who commit crimes that aren't murder shouldn't be sentenced to life in prison without a chance to get out. The Court said that teens need a chance to grow up and change, and that locking them away forever takes away their hope.

So, Caballero's sentence is being changed. He will still have to serve time in prison, but he will eventually have a chance to get out and start a new life. This is because the Supreme Court believes that even teens who commit serious crimes deserve a second chance.

Summary of Argument

In 2009, a boy named Rodrigo Caballero was found guilty of trying to hurt three people. He was only 16 years old when he did this. When he was 18, he was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison, which would be 110 years. That means he will die in prison.

But there's a law that says kids who commit crimes that aren't murder shouldn't be sentenced to life in prison without a chance to get out. This rule says that kids should have a chance to grow up and change, and that they shouldn't lose all hope.

So, because Rodrigo was sentenced to die in prison, his sentence is not fair. He should have a chance to get out of prison someday and show that he has changed.