Julio Bonilla, originally sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed as a juvenile in Iowa, challenged the state's parole procedures following his resentencing to life with the possibility of parole. Bonilla asserted that, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedents, juvenile offenders are entitled to a meaningful opportunity for release. The Iowa Supreme Court concurred, acknowledging that juveniles merit greater consideration than adults during parole proceedings. However, the court stopped short of mandating specific procedural safeguards, such as the appointment of legal counsel. The court determined that the Parole Board must consider a juvenile offender's rehabilitative potential and facilitate access to programs that would enable their eventual release.

Julio Bonilla, who received a life sentence without parole for a crime he committed as a minor in Iowa, contested the state's parole procedures after his sentence was reduced to life with the possibility of parole. Citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Bonilla argued that juveniles are entitled to a realistic chance at release. The Iowa Supreme Court concurred, affirming that juveniles deserve greater consideration than adults during parole hearings, although they stopped short of mandating specific procedures like the provision of appointed counsel. The court determined that the Parole Board must take into account a juvenile's capacity for rehabilitation and provide access to programs that facilitate their potential release.

Julio Bonilla, an Iowa inmate serving a life sentence for a crime he committed as a teenager, recently had his sentence changed to life with the possibility of parole. Even with the change, Bonilla argued that Iowa's parole process wasn't fair for people like him who were sentenced as kids. He believes that young people, based on decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, should have a real shot at getting out of prison. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed that young people deserve to be treated differently than adults in parole hearings. However, the Court didn’t give specific instructions like guaranteeing lawyers for them. The Court decided that the parole board has to think about a young person's ability to turn their life around and provide programs to help them get ready for release.

Julio Bonilla was just a teenager when he was sent to prison in Iowa and told he would have to stay there his whole life. Years later, a judge decided Bonilla could maybe go free someday, but only if a special group called the Parole Board agreed. Bonilla thought this wasn't fair because the Parole Board didn't have to treat young people any differently than adults. He said everyone deserved a real chance at freedom, especially since the highest court in the country, the U.S. Supreme Court, had already said that punishing kids too harshly is wrong.

The top court in Iowa agreed with Bonilla. They said teenagers deserve to be looked at differently than grown-ups when it comes to parole. The judges said the Parole Board must think about how a young person can change and become a better person. They also said the Board should help kids get ready to rejoin the world by giving them access to special programs. However, the court stopped short of saying everyone like Bonilla should automatically get a lawyer to help them ask for parole.