Abstract
Roger Scott Helm, convicted of murdering his parents and sister at 14 years old, appealed his life sentence without parole in State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. He argued the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, especially for young offenders. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, which limited life sentences for juveniles. However, the court found that Helm's case did not fall under Miller v. Alabama because his crimes pre-dated the ruling. They ultimately upheld his sentence.
Abstract
Roger Scott Helm, convicted of murdering his parents and sister at 14 years old, appealed his life sentence without parole in State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. He argued the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, especially for young offenders. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, which limited life sentences for juveniles. However, the court found that Helm's case did not fall under Miller v. Alabama because his crimes pre-dated the ruling. They ultimately upheld his sentence.
Roger Scott Helm, having been convicted at age fourteen for the murders of his parents and sister, initiated an appeal against his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Helm's argument centered upon the assertion that such a sentence transgressed the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, particularly as applied to youthful offenders. While acknowledging the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, which curtailed the imposition of life sentences upon minors, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that Helm's case fell outside the scope of Miller due to the fact that his crimes predated the ruling. Consequently, the court elected to uphold the original sentence.
Abstract
Roger Scott Helm, convicted of murdering his parents and sister at 14 years old, appealed his life sentence without parole in State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. He argued the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, especially for young offenders. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, which limited life sentences for juveniles. However, the court found that Helm's case did not fall under Miller v. Alabama because his crimes pre-dated the ruling. They ultimately upheld his sentence.
Roger Scott Helm, who was convicted of murdering his parents and sister at the age of 14, appealed his life sentence without the possibility of parole in the case of State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. Helm argued that this sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment, particularly given his age at the time of the crimes. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the precedent established by the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama, which placed limitations on life sentences imposed on minors. However, the court determined that Miller v. Alabama did not apply retroactively to Helm's case, as his crimes were committed before the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, the court upheld Helm's original sentence.
Abstract
Roger Scott Helm, convicted of murdering his parents and sister at 14 years old, appealed his life sentence without parole in State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. He argued the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, especially for young offenders. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, which limited life sentences for juveniles. However, the court found that Helm's case did not fall under Miller v. Alabama because his crimes pre-dated the ruling. They ultimately upheld his sentence.
Roger Scott Helm, who was found guilty of killing his parents and sister when he was only 14, recently tried to appeal his life sentence without the possibility of parole. In the case of State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm, Helm argued that being sentenced to life in prison when he was so young was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The Arizona Court of Appeals considered a recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, that put limits on life sentences for minors. However, the court decided that Helm's case didn't fit the rules set by Miller v. Alabama because his crimes happened before that ruling existed. As a result, they decided to keep his original sentence in place.
Abstract
Roger Scott Helm, convicted of murdering his parents and sister at 14 years old, appealed his life sentence without parole in State of Arizona v. Roger Scott Helm. He argued the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, especially for young offenders. The Arizona Court of Appeals acknowledged the recent Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, which limited life sentences for juveniles. However, the court found that Helm's case did not fall under Miller v. Alabama because his crimes pre-dated the ruling. They ultimately upheld his sentence.
Roger Scott Helm, who was found guilty of hurting and killing his parents and sister when he was 14 years old, asked the court to change his punishment of staying in prison for the rest of his life. He said this punishment was too harsh, especially for someone who was so young when they did something wrong.
The court looked at a big case decided a few years ago, called Miller v. Alabama, which said that judges need to be careful about giving life sentences to kids. However, the court decided that this case didn't change things for Roger because he committed his crimes before the Miller v. Alabama decision. So, the court decided that Roger would have to stay in prison for the rest of his life.