Summary of Argument

Miller v. Alabama alters virtually none of Pennsylvania's statutory sentencing provisions. Where it applies, it bars only the mandatory imposition of life without the possibility of parole. It therefore affects only a small and severable portion of the parole board jurisdiction statute. On appeal, it requires only a new sentencing proceeding in which the trial court will consider the defendant's "youth and attendant characteristics" in deciding between life without parole and life with the possibility of parole.

Contrary to defendant's unexplained argument, Miller does not purport to negate his conviction for first degree murder, transform that offense into third degree murder, or invalidate Pennsylvania law requiring a maximum life term for first degree murder. It requires only an individualized sentencing proceeding in which parole eligibility is an option. Defendant's argument to extend Miller to immunize him from a maximum life term is baseless. That case does not warrant any new or different construction of the state constitution regarding criminal punishments, which this Court has always held to be coextensive with the subsequently enacted federal provision. Miller does not render unconstitutional a sentence of life without parole under the federal constitution, and this Court held in Commonwealth v. Sourbeer that life without parole for a 14 year old first degree murderer does not shock the conscience and is not cruel. Miller affords no reason to look to the state constitution in an effort to expand upon its limited holding under the federal constitution.

Defendant is entitled only to resentencing consistent with Miller.

Summary of Argument

Miller v. Alabama does not significantly alter Pennsylvania's sentencing statutes. It prohibits only the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for juvenile offenders.

• The ruling affects a limited portion of the parole board's jurisdiction, requiring a new sentencing proceeding where the court considers the defendant's youth and related factors in determining whether to impose LWOP or life with parole eligibility.

• Contrary to the defendant's argument, Miller does not invalidate convictions for first-degree murder, reduce the offense to third-degree murder, or nullify Pennsylvania's law mandating a maximum life sentence for first-degree murder.

• The ruling necessitates an individualized sentencing process that includes parole eligibility as an option. The defendant's claim that Miller grants immunity from a maximum life sentence is unfounded.

• Miller does not render LWOP unconstitutional under the federal constitution. In Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, the court ruled that LWOP for a 14-year-old first-degree murderer does not violate the conscience or constitute cruel punishment.

• Miller provides no basis for expanding the interpretation of the state constitution regarding criminal punishments, which has been deemed coextensive with the federal provision.

The defendant is entitled to resentencing in accordance with Miller, which mandates consideration of their youth and related factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Summary of Argument

Key Points:

• The Miller v. Alabama ruling prohibits mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles.

• It only affects a small portion of Pennsylvania's sentencing laws.

• In cases where it applies, Miller requires a new sentencing hearing where the court considers the defendant's youth and other factors.

Miller v. Alabama does not change the conviction for first-degree murder or the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for that crime in Pennsylvania. Instead, it requires that juveniles convicted of first-degree murder have the opportunity for parole after serving a period of time.

The court must hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant should receive life without parole or life with the possibility of parole. During this hearing, the court will consider the defendant's age, maturity, and other relevant factors.

The defendant in this case is not immune from a maximum life sentence. However, they are entitled to a new sentencing hearing where the court will consider their youth and other factors before deciding on the appropriate sentence.

Conclusion:

Miller v. Alabama does not significantly alter Pennsylvania's sentencing laws. It only requires individualized sentencing hearings for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder, ensuring that their youth and other factors are taken into account.

Summary of Argument

What Miller v. Alabama Says:

• It doesn't allow judges to automatically sentence young offenders to life in prison without the chance of parole (getting out of prison early).

• Instead, judges have to consider the offender's age and other factors before deciding between life without parole and life with the possibility of parole.

What Miller v. Alabama Doesn't Do:

• It doesn't change the fact that someone can be found guilty of first-degree murder.

• It doesn't make first-degree murder a less serious crime.

• It doesn't say that young offenders can't be sentenced to life in prison.

What It Means for Young Offenders:

• If you're convicted of first-degree murder and you were under 18 when you committed the crime, you can't be automatically sentenced to life without parole.

• The judge will have to consider your age and other factors before making a decision.

• You have the right to a new sentencing hearing where these factors will be considered.

Remember:

Miller v. Alabama only applies to young offenders who are sentenced after the case was decided. It doesn't apply to people who are already serving life sentences without parole.

Summary of Argument

In a case called Miller v. Alabama, the court said that kids who are sentenced to life in prison without the chance of getting out should have a special hearing. This hearing is to help the judge decide if the kid should really have to stay in prison forever or if they should have a chance to get out someday.

The court said that kids are different from adults, and they should be treated differently when they get in trouble. The judge needs to think about the kid's age and other things about them before deciding on their punishment.

This doesn't mean that kids who commit serious crimes won't be punished. It just means that they should have a chance to show that they have changed and deserve a second chance.

So, if a kid is sentenced to life in prison without parole, they can now have a hearing where the judge will consider their age and other factors. The judge can then decide if the kid should stay in prison forever or if they should have the possibility of getting out someday.