Abstract
This 2017 case before the Supreme Court of Montana involved Derrick Steilman who was convicted of homicide for crimes he committed when he was 17 years old. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole was de facto a life sentence and unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Mr. Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Abstract
This 2017 case before the Supreme Court of Montana involved Derrick Steilman who was convicted of homicide for crimes he committed when he was 17 years old. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole was de facto a life sentence and unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Mr. Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Summary
The 2017 Montana Supreme Court case, State v. Steilman, involved Derrick Steilman's conviction for homicide committed at age 17. Steilman appealed his 110-year sentence, arguing it was a de facto life sentence and thus unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not sufficiently considered during sentencing.
The Montana Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Abstract
This 2017 case before the Supreme Court of Montana involved Derrick Steilman who was convicted of homicide for crimes he committed when he was 17 years old. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole was de facto a life sentence and unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Mr. Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Summary
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Montana heard the case of Derrick Steilman, who had been convicted of homicide at the age of 17. Steilman appealed his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole, arguing it constituted a de facto life sentence and violated the constitutional principles established in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, which require consideration of a defendant's youth.
The Montana Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence. This decision rested on the fact that Steilman had accumulated good-time credits and a portion of his sentence had already been discharged.
Abstract
This 2017 case before the Supreme Court of Montana involved Derrick Steilman who was convicted of homicide for crimes he committed when he was 17 years old. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole was de facto a life sentence and unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Mr. Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Summary
The Supreme Court of Montana considered a case involving Derrick Steilman, who was convicted of homicide at age 17. Steilman appealed his 110-year sentence without the possibility of parole, arguing it was effectively a life sentence and unconstitutional under the Supreme Court rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana. He claimed the court did not adequately take his age into account.
The Montana Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Steilman's sentence was not a life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits, which reduced his sentence, and part of his sentence had been previously discharged.
Abstract
This 2017 case before the Supreme Court of Montana involved Derrick Steilman who was convicted of homicide for crimes he committed when he was 17 years old. He appealed on the grounds that his sentence of 110 years without the possibility of parole was de facto a life sentence and unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because his youth was not adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Mr. Steilman's sentence was not a de facto life sentence because he had accumulated good-time credits and part of his sentence had previously been discharged.
Summary
Derrick Steilman was convicted of murder when he was 17 years old. He got a sentence of 110 years in prison with no chance of getting out early. He argued that this was too long and unfair because he was a young person when he committed the crime.
The Montana Supreme Court said Steilman's sentence was not a life sentence because he could get out early if he behaved well in prison. They also said that part of his sentence was already over.