Abstract
In this case, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed his sentence in light of the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama which said that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole except in rare circumstances. Mr. Machicote was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but was later resentenced again to life in prison without parole, and later, after another appeal, he was sentenced to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the postconviction court had failed to consider the factors of youth adopted from Miller v. Alabama and that the most recent sentence of 30 years to life violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Abstract
In this case, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed his sentence in light of the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama which said that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole except in rare circumstances. Mr. Machicote was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but was later resentenced again to life in prison without parole, and later, after another appeal, he was sentenced to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the postconviction court had failed to consider the factors of youth adopted from Miller v. Alabama and that the most recent sentence of 30 years to life violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Summary
In Machicote v. Pennsylvania, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was initially convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as a juvenile. This sentence was challenged in light of Miller v. Alabama, which ruled that life sentences without parole for juveniles were unconstitutional except in rare circumstances.
As a result of this case, Mr. Machicote's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Subsequently, he was resentenced to life imprisonment without parole and later to 30 years to life. After another appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the postconviction court had neglected to consider the mitigating factors of youth, as outlined in Miller v. Alabama. The court further determined that the final sentence of 30 years to life infringed upon Mr. Machicote's Eighth Amendment rights, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishments.
Abstract
In this case, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed his sentence in light of the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama which said that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole except in rare circumstances. Mr. Machicote was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but was later resentenced again to life in prison without parole, and later, after another appeal, he was sentenced to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the postconviction court had failed to consider the factors of youth adopted from Miller v. Alabama and that the most recent sentence of 30 years to life violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Summary
The defendant, Mr. Machicote, was initially sentenced to life without parole for second-degree murder committed as a juvenile. Following the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama, which prohibited mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, he was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole. However, he was subsequently resentenced again to life without parole, then to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed the 30-year to life sentence, arguing that it violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, finding that the postconviction court had failed to consider the mitigating factors of youth as outlined in Miller v. Alabama.
Abstract
In this case, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed his sentence in light of the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama which said that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole except in rare circumstances. Mr. Machicote was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but was later resentenced again to life in prison without parole, and later, after another appeal, he was sentenced to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the postconviction court had failed to consider the factors of youth adopted from Miller v. Alabama and that the most recent sentence of 30 years to life violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Summary
Mr. Machicote was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed his sentence, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama made it illegal to give juvenile offenders life sentences without parole. The court agreed with Mr. Machicote and reduced his sentence to life with the possibility of parole.
The court later changed its mind and gave him life without parole again. Mr. Machicote appealed this decision. After another appeal, the court changed his sentence again to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed one last time, arguing that the sentence violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with Mr. Machicote, saying that the court did not consider the effects of youth as directed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that Mr. Machicote's 30-year sentence was unconstitutional.
Abstract
In this case, the defendant, Mr. Machicote, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed his sentence in light of the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama which said that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without parole except in rare circumstances. Mr. Machicote was resentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but was later resentenced again to life in prison without parole, and later, after another appeal, he was sentenced to 30 years to life. Mr. Machicote appealed again, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the postconviction court had failed to consider the factors of youth adopted from Miller v. Alabama and that the most recent sentence of 30 years to life violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Summary
Mr. Machicote was found guilty of killing someone and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of getting out. This was for crimes he did when he was a young kid. He appealed his sentence because the Supreme Court said that young people shouldn't be locked up forever unless it's really needed.
Mr. Machicote got a new sentence, but he was still sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of getting out. After another appeal, he got a sentence of 30 years to life.
Mr. Machicote appealed again. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said that the judge who gave him the sentence didn't think about the things that make young people different from adults. They also said that the sentence of 30 years to life was unfair because it violated his rights.