Summary of Argument

NOW COMES Amici Curiae Roberto Casanova Jr. (interested prisoner) pursuant to MCR 7.312(H)(1) and hereby moves this Honorable Court for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Defendant-Appellant John Antonio Poole. In support of this motion, amici curiae states: Appellant Poole was convicted of First Degree Murder, Felony Firearms. As a result of the conviction, Appellant Poole was sentenced to a mandatory Life Without Parole sentence. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court changed how sentencing judges should impose sentences on those under the age of 18. The Supreme Court concluded that "mandatory life without parole for those under 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment" Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. 460 (2012). In 2015, the United States Supreme Court applied Miller retroactively, Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2016). The Michigan Legislature enacted MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a to address Life Without Parole sentences committed by minors and gave trial judges the discretion to impose sentences ranging from 25 years to 40 years with a maximum term of 60 years if the prosecuting attorney had moved the court to reinstate a life sentence after conducting a Miller Hearing. In 2017 Dr. Lawrence Steinberg, an expert in adolescent brain development and a professor at Temple University, testified at a federal evidentiary hearing that the same brain development and characteristic hallmarks of juveniles under 18 also apply to all teenagers and late adolescents with equal force. Subsequently, Appellant Poole filed a successive "motion for relief from judgment" based on new scientific evidence and the retroactive application of Miller as announced in Montgomery.

Summary

This document is a motion filed by Roberto Casanova Jr. (amicus curiae, or friend of the court) requesting permission to file an amicus brief in support of John Antonio Poole, the defendant-appellant in this case. The motion argues that Poole's sentence of life without parole for a murder conviction, imposed when he was under 18, violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The motion cites the Supreme Court's landmark rulings in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) which declared that mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. The motion further points out that Michigan has enacted legislation to address this issue by allowing for the possibility of resentencing for juveniles sentenced to life without parole, with a possible range of sentences between 25 and 60 years.

Finally, the motion highlights the testimony of Dr. Lawrence Steinberg, an expert in adolescent brain development, who argued that the same developmental characteristics that apply to juveniles under 18 also apply to all teenagers and late adolescents. This testimony strengthens the argument that Poole, who was a teenager when he committed the crime, should be subject to resentencing under the new legal framework.

Summary

Roberto Casanova Jr., an individual currently incarcerated, has filed a motion to be recognized as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) in support of John Antonio Poole, the defendant appealing his conviction.

This motion argues that Poole, convicted of First-Degree Murder and Felony Firearm possession, was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama (2012) that mandatory life without parole sentences for individuals under 18 at the time of the crime violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling was applied retroactively in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).

In response, Michigan enacted laws (MCL 769.25 and 769.25a) to address life without parole sentences for minors, granting judges discretion to impose sentences ranging from 25 to 40 years with a maximum of 60 years. Prosecutors can also request a reinstatement of the life sentence after a Miller hearing.

In 2017, Dr. Lawrence Steinberg, an expert in adolescent brain development, testified that the same developmental characteristics observed in individuals under 18 also apply to teenagers and late adolescents.

Poole has filed a motion for relief from judgment, citing this new scientific evidence and the retroactive application of Miller in Montgomery.

Summary of Argument

Roberto Casanova Jr., a prisoner who wants to help in this case, is asking the court to allow him to file a brief in support of John Antonio Poole, the person appealing his conviction. Here's why:

Poole was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to give mandatory life sentences without parole to people who were under 18 when they committed the crime. The court said this is cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2015, the Supreme Court made this ruling apply to cases that happened before the ruling (retroactive application). Michigan lawmakers made changes to their laws, allowing judges to sentence minors to a range of prison terms instead of life without parole.

Dr. Steinberg, a brain development expert, testified that the same brain development and characteristics found in teens under 18 also apply to older teenagers. Based on all this, Poole is asking the court to reconsider his sentence, arguing that new scientific evidence and the Supreme Court's rulings should apply to his case.

Summary

A man named John Poole was found guilty of a serious crime and sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole. This means he will spend the rest of his life in prison. However, there's a new law that says people under 18 who commit crimes shouldn't automatically get life in prison without a chance of parole.

The law changed because scientists learned that the brains of teenagers are still developing, and they might not be able to understand the consequences of their actions as well as adults. This means a judge can now decide whether someone who was under 18 when they committed a crime should get life in prison without the chance of parole, or if they should get a different sentence.

Mr. Poole wants the judge to look at his case again because the law has changed. He also wants the judge to consider new information about how teenagers' brains work, and how this could affect how they understand their actions.