Abstract
John M. Blount appealed his sentence in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania after originally receiving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. This sentencing conflicted with recent Supreme Court decisions banning such mandatory sentences for juveniles. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life, but challenged the rejection of a negotiated plea for a shorter sentence and the imposition of a mandatory lifetime parole tail. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his subsequent appeal.
Abstract
John M. Blount appealed his sentence in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania after originally receiving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. This sentencing conflicted with recent Supreme Court decisions banning such mandatory sentences for juveniles. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life, but challenged the rejection of a negotiated plea for a shorter sentence and the imposition of a mandatory lifetime parole tail. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his subsequent appeal.
John M. Blount initiated an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania following his initial sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a crime committed during his youth. This original sentence stood in conflict with recent Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the imposition of such mandatory sentences on individuals tried as juveniles. While Blount's sentence was subsequently revised to a term of 35-years-to-life, he contested both the court's refusal to accept a negotiated plea agreement for a reduced sentence and the mandatory lifetime parole stipulation attached to his revised sentence. The Superior Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's sentencing decision, and a subsequent appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied.
Abstract
John M. Blount appealed his sentence in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania after originally receiving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. This sentencing conflicted with recent Supreme Court decisions banning such mandatory sentences for juveniles. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life, but challenged the rejection of a negotiated plea for a shorter sentence and the imposition of a mandatory lifetime parole tail. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his subsequent appeal.
John M. Blount appealed a 35-years-to-life sentence from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which he received for a crime committed as a juvenile. His original sentence of mandatory life without parole was overturned due to Supreme Court rulings prohibiting such sentences for minors. Blount contested the court's refusal to accept a plea deal for a reduced sentence and the mandatory lifetime parole requirement attached to his current sentence. The Superior Court upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a subsequent appeal.
Abstract
John M. Blount appealed his sentence in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania after originally receiving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. This sentencing conflicted with recent Supreme Court decisions banning such mandatory sentences for juveniles. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life, but challenged the rejection of a negotiated plea for a shorter sentence and the imposition of a mandatory lifetime parole tail. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his subsequent appeal.
John M. Blount, who received a life sentence without parole as a teenager for murder, recently appealed his new sentence in a Pennsylvania court. Blount's original sentence went against recent Supreme Court rulings that say juveniles can't automatically get life without parole. A judge gave him a new sentence of 35-years-to-life. Blount tried to get a shorter sentence through a plea deal, but the court rejected it. He also challenged the requirement of lifelong parole after his release, but the Superior Court upheld the original decision. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also rejected his appeal.
Abstract
John M. Blount appealed his sentence in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania after originally receiving a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. This sentencing conflicted with recent Supreme Court decisions banning such mandatory sentences for juveniles. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life, but challenged the rejection of a negotiated plea for a shorter sentence and the imposition of a mandatory lifetime parole tail. The Superior Court ultimately upheld the sentence, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his subsequent appeal.
John M. Blount went to court because he thought his sentence was unfair. He was given a life sentence without the chance to get out of prison for something he did as a minor. The highest court in the country, the Supreme Court, had decided that this kind of sentence wasn't allowed for young people. So, the court gave him a new sentence of 35 years to life. Blount still wasn't happy. He tried to get a shorter sentence by making a deal with the lawyers, but the court said no. He also didn't like that he would be on parole for the rest of his life, even if he got out of prison. He asked a higher court to change his sentence again, but they agreed with the first court. Then, he asked the very highest court in Pennsylvania, but they also agreed with the lower court's decision.