Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed and was resentenced to 92 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the defendant's discretionary sentence of 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights nor was it disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed and was resentenced to 92 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the defendant's discretionary sentence of 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights nor was it disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Summary
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as a juvenile. The defendant appealed the sentence, and the trial court resentenced him to 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the offense.
The South Dakota Supreme Court found that the defendant's 92-year sentence, with the possibility of parole at age 60, was not a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights. The court also determined that the sentence was not disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed and was resentenced to 92 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the defendant's discretionary sentence of 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights nor was it disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Summary
This case involved a defendant convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison for crimes committed as a juvenile. The defendant's sentence was later reduced to 92 years. However, the defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment, citing his age at the time of the crime (14 years old).
The South Dakota Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the defendant's sentence, which included the possibility of parole at age 60, did not constitute a de facto life sentence. The court reasoned that the sentence was not disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed and was resentenced to 92 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the defendant's discretionary sentence of 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights nor was it disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Summary
A teenager was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He argued that his sentence was too harsh and violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of South Dakota disagreed, saying that his sentence wasn't a life sentence, but rather a lengthy prison term with the possibility of parole. They decided that the sentence was fair, considering the seriousness of the crime.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory life in prison for crimes he committed as a juvenile. He appealed and was resentenced to 92 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he was 14 years old at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court of South Dakota found that the defendant's discretionary sentence of 92 years in prison, with the possibility of parole at age 60, did not qualify as a de facto life sentence and therefore did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights nor was it disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.
Summary
A man was found guilty of murder and given a life sentence in prison because of crimes he did when he was a teenager. He asked for a new trial and got a new sentence of 92 years in prison. He argued that this new sentence was too harsh because he was only 14 years old when he committed the crime.
The highest court in South Dakota said that the 92-year sentence, with the possibility of getting out of prison early at age 60, wasn't a lifetime sentence and therefore didn't violate his rights. The court also said that the sentence was fair considering the seriousness of the crime.