Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders is unconstitutional. Under current Nebraska law, any juvenile convicted of first degree murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. NEB. REV. STAT. § 29-2520. The statute governing first degree murder fails to account for consideration of the different levels of culpability associated with participation as an aider/abettor, versus as the actual shooter. Additionally, the sentencing judge has no discretion to take the offender’s youth or other circumstances into account, and the only available sentence does not provide the constitutionally mandated possibility of parole for a juvenile who did not commit homicide. See Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (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). The possibility of commutation of the life imprisonment sentence does not alter the unconstitutionality of the punishment as it neither allows the court to impose an individualized sentence (as required by Miller), nor does it provide a meaningful opportunity for release (as required by Graham, 130 S. Ct. at 2030). Accordingly, Appellant Juan Castañeda’s sentence must be vacated and a new constitutional sentence imposed.

Summary of Argument

In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional. Nebraska's current law mandates life imprisonment without parole for any juvenile convicted of first-degree murder, regardless of their role in the crime or individual circumstances. This law fails to consider differing levels of culpability between participants and the actual perpetrator, and it does not allow the sentencing judge to consider the offender's youth or other mitigating factors.

The Nebraska statute also violates the constitutional requirement for the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide, as established in Graham v. Florida. While commutation of the life sentence is possible, it does not address the constitutional requirement for individualized sentencing or provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Therefore, Juan Castañeda's sentence must be vacated, and a new sentence that complies with constitutional standards must be imposed.

Summary of Argument

In the landmark case of Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the automatic imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. This ruling has significant implications for state sentencing schemes, including Nebraska's.

Nebraska law currently mandates a life sentence without parole for anyone convicted of first-degree murder, regardless of age. This statute, however, fails to acknowledge the diverse levels of culpability present in aiding and abetting a crime compared to directly committing the act. It also ignores the unique circumstances of juvenile offenders, including their developmental maturity and potential for rehabilitation. The lack of judicial discretion in this sentencing scheme, coupled with the absence of a parole option for juveniles, directly conflicts with the principles established in Miller and Graham v. Florida.

Graham v. Florida established that a life sentence without parole cannot be imposed on a juvenile unless they were directly involved in the killing or intended to kill. The current Nebraska statute violates this principle by failing to provide for parole, even for juvenile offenders who did not directly commit the murder. While the possibility of commutation exists, it does not address the fundamental constitutional issues raised by the statute. Commutation does not allow for an individualized sentencing process, nor does it provide a meaningful opportunity for release, as required by Graham.

Therefore, the sentence imposed on Juan Castañeda must be vacated and a new, constitutionally compliant sentence imposed. This sentence should be tailored to acknowledge his youth, individual circumstances, and the degree of his involvement in the crime, while also providing a meaningful possibility of parole.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miller v. Alabama that it's against the Constitution to automatically give a life sentence without the possibility of parole to someone who committed a crime as a juvenile.

Nebraska law currently requires anyone found guilty of first-degree murder as a juvenile to get life in prison without the chance of parole. This law doesn't consider the different levels of responsibility involved when someone helps commit a crime compared to actually carrying it out. The judge can't take the person's age or other factors into account when deciding on a sentence, and the only option available doesn't allow for the possibility of parole, which the Supreme Court says is necessary for juveniles.

Another Supreme Court case, Graham v. Florida, says that a life sentence without the possibility of parole can't be given to a juvenile unless they either killed someone or intended to kill someone. Just because the life sentence could be changed later doesn't make it constitutional because it doesn't allow the judge to consider individual circumstances or give the person a real chance to be released.

Based on these rulings, Juan Castañeda's sentence should be overturned, and a new sentence should be given that follows the Constitution.

Summary of Argument

Juan Castañeda was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder. This means he will never be released from prison. The Supreme Court has ruled that this type of sentence is unconstitutional for people who committed crimes when they were young.

The Court said that a person’s age should be considered when they are sentenced for a crime. Also, the law in Nebraska does not allow the judge to consider all the facts of the crime, like whether the person actually killed someone or just helped.

The law also doesn’t allow the judge to give a sentence that would allow the person to be released from prison someday. This means the sentence is not fair and must be changed.