Summary of Argument

The judicially created sentencing scheme applied to petitioner is unconstitutional. Miller v. Alabama reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. The appellate court's sentence deprives petitioner of a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Miller and Graham. Mandatory sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 40 years contravene Miller and Graham. Colorado's sentencing scheme is inconsistent with, and harsher than, emerging legislative and sentencing trends in other jurisdictions.

Petitioner should be resentenced based on the trial court's application of Miller and Graham, with guidance from this court. Miller requires the sentencer to make an individualized sentencing determination based on a juvenile's overall culpability.

Summary of Argument

The petitioner's sentence is unconstitutional under the legal precedent established by Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. The Supreme Court's rulings in these cases emphasize the fundamental differences between children and adults, arguing that children are categorically less deserving of the most severe forms of punishment. The appellate court's sentence, which mandates life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 40 years, deprives the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity for release, as mandated by Miller and Graham.

This mandatory sentencing scheme contradicts the spirit of Miller and Graham, which call for individualized sentencing determinations based on a juvenile's overall culpability. The Colorado sentencing scheme further deviates from national trends in legislation and sentencing practices, imposing harsher penalties than many other jurisdictions.

The petitioner requests a resentencing, guided by this court, based on the trial court's application of Miller and Graham. This will allow for a more individualized assessment of the petitioner's culpability and ensure that the sentence reflects the constitutional principles established by the Supreme Court.

Summary of Argument

The petitioner's sentence is unconstitutional because it fails to account for the unique characteristics of juveniles and does not provide a meaningful opportunity for release. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that children are fundamentally different from adults, and therefore, less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. The appellate court's sentence fails to adhere to the Supreme Court's precedents in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida, which mandate that sentencing for juveniles must consider individual culpability and provide a path towards release.

Colorado's mandatory sentencing scheme, which requires a minimum of 40 years before parole eligibility, violates the principles of Miller and Graham by failing to allow for individualized consideration of the offender's circumstances. Furthermore, this scheme is out of step with emerging sentencing trends in other jurisdictions.

The petitioner should be resentenced, guided by the trial court's application of Miller and Graham, to ensure that the sentence is individualized and allows for a meaningful opportunity for release. This requires the sentencer to assess the juvenile's overall culpability and consider mitigating factors before imposing a sentence.

Summary of Argument

The case argues that the current sentencing system for a juvenile is unfair and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has recognized that young people are different from adults and should not be given the harshest punishments. The current sentence for the petitioner would keep them in prison for a very long time, which goes against what the court has said about giving young offenders a chance at release.

The argument is that this sentencing system is too strict and goes against what other states are doing. The court should review the sentence and make sure it’s fair based on the individual circumstances of the young person and the crime committed.

Summary of Argument

In this case, the judge gave the person in this case a sentence that is unfair and goes against previous rulings made by the Court. The Supreme Court says that kids are different from adults and shouldn't get the toughest punishments. The current sentence given is very long. The law in Colorado about sentences is different from other places and is too harsh. The judge should give a new sentence that considers the person's age and how bad the crime was.