The 2022 case of Lee Boyd Malvo v. State of Maryland concerned Malvo's appeal of his life-without-parole sentences, which were imposed for his role as a 17-year-old accomplice in the Washington, D.C. sniper attacks. This appeal arose in the context of evolving jurisprudence on juvenile sentencing, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012). Miller mandated that sentencing courts must consider a juvenile offender's youth and attendant attributes, such as their potential for rehabilitation, as mitigating factors. Malvo argued that his original sentencing proceedings failed to afford such consideration, thus warranting a resentencing hearing.

The 2022 case of Lee Boyd Malvo v. State of Maryland revolved around Malvo's challenge to his multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole. These sentences were handed down for his role as a 17-year-old accomplice in the deadly DC sniper attacks. However, landmark Supreme Court decisions like Miller v. Alabama (2012) established a requirement for courts to weigh a juvenile offender's youth and capacity for rehabilitation during the sentencing process. Malvo argued that his initial sentencing did not incorporate these crucial factors and, therefore, warranted a judicial review.

In 2022, Lee Boyd Malvo went back to court to challenge his life sentences. He was convicted for his role in the DC sniper attacks, which he took part in when he was only 17 years old. See, the Supreme Court has made some big decisions about sentencing young people. Cases like Miller v. Alabama (2012) say judges have to think about a young person's age and their chances of turning their life around before giving them a harsh sentence like life without parole. Malvo argued that his original trial didn't take this into account and that he deserved a new sentencing hearing.

Lee Boyd Malvo was part of a team that scared lots of people in the Washington, DC area by shooting people from far away back in 2002. Malvo was only 17 years old then, and he was given a serious sentence called "life without parole," which means he would stay in jail forever. But since then, the highest court in the country has decided that judges need to think carefully about how young someone is and how they might change for the better before giving this kind of sentence to someone under 18. Malvo says the judges who sentenced him didn't think about those things, so he's asking for another chance to have his sentence looked at again.