Abstract
Frank Vigil, sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a juvenile for murder, appealed based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned such sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. They distinguished Miller because it applied prospectively, and Vigil's case was on collateral review after a final judgment. The court held Miller did not retroactively apply, leaving Vigil's sentence intact.
Abstract
Frank Vigil, sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a juvenile for murder, appealed based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned such sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. They distinguished Miller because it applied prospectively, and Vigil's case was on collateral review after a final judgment. The court held Miller did not retroactively apply, leaving Vigil's sentence intact.
Frank Vigil, who received a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a crime committed as a juvenile, sought post-conviction relief based on the precedent established in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). In Miller, the Supreme Court of the United States held that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court, however, declined to apply Miller retroactively. The court reasoned that Vigil's case was final, having concluded direct review, and that Miller's application to cases on collateral review was not the precedent's intended effect. Therefore, Vigil's sentence was affirmed.
Abstract
Frank Vigil, sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a juvenile for murder, appealed based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned such sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. They distinguished Miller because it applied prospectively, and Vigil's case was on collateral review after a final judgment. The court held Miller did not retroactively apply, leaving Vigil's sentence intact.
Frank Vigil, who received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime he committed as a juvenile, sought to have his sentence overturned based on the precedent set by Miller v. Alabama. In Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles are unconstitutional. However, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Vigil, differentiating his case from Miller on the basis of its procedural posture. The court explained that Miller applies to future cases, while Vigil's case was a collateral review of a final judgment. Because the court determined that Miller does not apply retroactively to cases like Vigil's, his original sentence remains in effect.
Abstract
Frank Vigil, sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a juvenile for murder, appealed based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned such sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. They distinguished Miller because it applied prospectively, and Vigil's case was on collateral review after a final judgment. The court held Miller did not retroactively apply, leaving Vigil's sentence intact.
Frank Vigil, who was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a murder he committed as a teenager, appealed his sentence. He argued that it should be reconsidered based on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama. This ruling stated that mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles are unconstitutional. However, the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with Vigil's argument. They said the Miller decision only applies to future cases, not cases like Vigil's that have already been decided and are being reviewed again. As a result, the court kept Vigil's original sentence in place.
Abstract
Frank Vigil, sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a juvenile for murder, appealed based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned such sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. They distinguished Miller because it applied prospectively, and Vigil's case was on collateral review after a final judgment. The court held Miller did not retroactively apply, leaving Vigil's sentence intact.
Frank Vigil was given a life sentence in prison as a kid for murder. This means he can never be released. He asked the court to shorten his sentence because of a new rule from the Supreme Court in a case called Miller v. Alabama. This rule says minors can't be given life sentences without the chance of ever getting out.
The Colorado Supreme Court decided against his request. They said the Miller v. Alabama rule only applies to new cases. Vigil's case was decided a long time ago, so the new rule doesn't help him. Sadly, this means Frank Vigil will stay in prison for the rest of his life.