Abstract
Ulonzo Gordon, sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a murder committed when he was a juvenile, challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibited such sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a previous appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), found procedural errors and remanded for a proper hearing. On remand, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, finding that Miller applied retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that Miller did not apply retroactively or that Gordon's due process or equal protection rights were not violated.
Abstract
Ulonzo Gordon, sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a murder committed when he was a juvenile, challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibited such sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a previous appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), found procedural errors and remanded for a proper hearing. On remand, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, finding that Miller applied retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that Miller did not apply retroactively or that Gordon's due process or equal protection rights were not violated.
In the case of Ulonzo Gordon, an individual sentenced to life without parole for a murder committed as a minor, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling granting Gordon resentencing. Gordon's case, which was previously remanded in Hobbs v. Gordon (2014) due to procedural errors, centered around the retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama. This landmark Supreme Court decision prohibited mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. The circuit court determined that Miller applied retroactively, thus granting Gordon relief. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld this decision, rejecting the state's arguments against the retroactive application of Miller and assertions that Gordon's due process and equal protection rights remained inviolate.
Abstract
Ulonzo Gordon, sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a murder committed when he was a juvenile, challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibited such sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a previous appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), found procedural errors and remanded for a proper hearing. On remand, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, finding that Miller applied retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that Miller did not apply retroactively or that Gordon's due process or equal protection rights were not violated.
Ulonzo Gordon, who received a mandatory life sentence without parole for a murder he committed as a minor, challenged his sentence following the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which deemed such sentences unconstitutional. In a prior appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), the Arkansas Supreme Court identified procedural mistakes and sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing.
During this subsequent hearing, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, determining that the Miller decision applied retroactively to his case. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld this ruling, dismissing the state's arguments that Miller lacked retroactive application and that Gordon's due process and equal protection rights were not infringed upon.
Abstract
Ulonzo Gordon, sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a murder committed when he was a juvenile, challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibited such sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a previous appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), found procedural errors and remanded for a proper hearing. On remand, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, finding that Miller applied retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that Miller did not apply retroactively or that Gordon's due process or equal protection rights were not violated.
Ulonzo Gordon was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a murder he committed as a teenager. However, the Supreme Court later ruled in a different case (Miller v. Alabama) that these types of sentences were unconstitutional for juveniles. Gordon appealed his sentence, hoping this ruling would help his case.
The Arkansas Supreme Court initially agreed that Gordon's case had some problems and sent it back to a lower court for another look (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014). The lower court then decided that the Miller ruling should apply to Gordon's case and gave him a chance to be released. The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that the Miller ruling didn't apply to Gordon or that his rights were violated.
Abstract
Ulonzo Gordon, sentenced to mandatory life without parole for a murder committed when he was a juvenile, challenged his sentence after the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibited such sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a previous appeal (Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014), found procedural errors and remanded for a proper hearing. On remand, the circuit court granted Gordon relief, finding that Miller applied retroactively. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed this decision, rejecting the state's arguments that Miller did not apply retroactively or that Gordon's due process or equal protection rights were not violated.
Ulonzo Gordon was just a kid when he was given a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole for murder. But the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, decided in a case called Miller v. Alabama that giving kids this kind of sentence is not allowed.
Because of this decision, Gordon asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to take another look at his case. The court agreed that his sentence needed to be reviewed, so they sent his case back to a lower court. That court decided Gordon should get another chance and shouldn't stay in prison forever.
The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, saying that the Miller v. Alabama decision applied to Gordon's case, even though it happened earlier. They said it wouldn't be fair to treat Gordon differently from other people in similar situations.