Summary of Argument

The United States Supreme Court decisions of Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Roper v. Simmons establish that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing. In each case the Court struck disproportionate sentencing practices that denied considerations of youthfulness and individual circumstances. Under the rules announced by the Court in Miller, Graham, and Roper, constitutional juvenile sentencing requires: (1) consideration of the mitigating attributes of adolescence that apply to all juveniles as a class; (2) consideration of each juvenile’s individual history and unique personal and offense characteristics; and (3) a meaningful opportunity for release based upon a young person’s demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.

Colorado’s mandatory adult sentencing scheme that required Frank Vigil, Jr. and forty-seven other juveniles be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Miller. The correct remedy to this constitutional violation is to remand Frank Vigil, Jr.’s case to the trial court for an individualized sentencing hearing with judicial discretion to impose an appropriate constitutionally proportional sentence. Because Miller and Graham require individualized sentencing that considers each juvenile’s individual history and unique personal and offense characteristics, in addition to a meaningful opportunity for release, the trial Court properly ordered a new sentencing hearing with judicial discretion for Frank Vigil Jr.

Summary of Argument

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Roper v. Simmons have established that juveniles, due to their developmental immaturity, are fundamentally distinct from adults for sentencing purposes. These decisions struck down sentencing schemes that disregarded the unique characteristics of youth and failed to consider individual circumstances.

Based on these precedents, constitutionally sound juvenile sentencing demands a multi-faceted approach: (1) recognition of the inherent mitigating factors associated with adolescence that apply to all juveniles; (2) thorough consideration of each juvenile's individual history, personal characteristics, and the specific circumstances of the crime; and (3) the provision of a meaningful opportunity for release, contingent upon the juvenile's demonstrable maturity and progress in rehabilitation.

Colorado's mandatory sentencing statute, which mandated life imprisonment without parole for juveniles, including Frank Vigil Jr., directly contradicts the Eighth Amendment and the principles established in Miller. This violation necessitates a re-evaluation of Vigil Jr.'s sentence through an individualized sentencing hearing, where the trial court will have the discretion to impose a constitutionally proportionate sentence.

The trial court's order for a new sentencing hearing for Vigil Jr., grounded in the requirements of Miller and Graham, is justified. This individualized process ensures that each juvenile's unique circumstances are thoroughly assessed, and a meaningful opportunity for release is granted, aligning with the constitutional principles of proportionate sentencing for juveniles.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court rulings in Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and Roper v. Simmons established that juveniles are constitutionally distinct from adults when it comes to sentencing. These decisions struck down sentencing practices that unfairly disregarded the unique characteristics of youth. Based on these rulings, constitutional juvenile sentencing requires:

1. Acknowledging the mitigating factors of youth: Recognizing the developmental differences and unique vulnerabilities inherent to adolescence, which apply to all juveniles.

2. Individualized assessment: Considering each juvenile's specific background, personal traits, and the circumstances surrounding the offense.

3. Meaningful opportunity for release: Providing a realistic chance for release based on demonstrated maturity and successful rehabilitation efforts.

Colorado's mandatory sentencing scheme, which imposed life without parole on Frank Vigil Jr. and 47 other juveniles, violates the Eighth Amendment and the principles outlined in Miller. The appropriate remedy is to return Frank Vigil Jr.'s case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. This hearing should provide judicial discretion to impose a sentence that is proportional and constitutionally sound, considering the specific factors outlined in Miller and Graham. The trial court's order for a new sentencing hearing with judicial discretion is justified because the mandatory scheme fails to meet the requirements of individualized assessment and a meaningful opportunity for release.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that kids are different from adults when it comes to sentencing. The court has said that laws that punish kids the same as adults are unfair. The court has decided that sentencing laws must consider that kids are still developing and can change over time.

In Colorado, there was a law that required kids to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This law was struck down by the courts because it was found to be unconstitutional.

A young man named Frank Vigil, Jr. was sentenced under this law. The court decided that Vigil’s case should be sent back to the lower court so that he can get a new sentencing hearing. The new hearing will consider his age, his past, and his chances of changing. The judge will have the power to give him a sentence that is fair and appropriate.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has said that kids are different from adults when it comes to punishments. They decided that laws punishing kids the same way as adults are unfair. This means judges need to consider a kid’s age and what they did when deciding on a punishment.

Colorado had a law that said certain kids had to be put in prison for life without the chance to get out. The Supreme Court said this law was wrong. They said that each kid’s case should be looked at carefully, and they should have a chance to show they’ve changed and can be released from prison.

So, a judge told the state of Colorado they had to give Frank Vigil, Jr. a new hearing to decide on his punishment. This hearing will be fair and will consider everything about Frank’s case and his chance to get better.