OLR Report 2014-R-0108 answers the question: Regarding the United States Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama, (1) how have other states responded to this ruling, (2) how have other courts responded, and (3) are there any Connecticut cases on this issue?
In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits courts from automatically imposing life without parole (LWOP) sentences on offenders who committed homicides while they were juveniles (under age 18). The Court did not categorically bar these sentences but stated that a court must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison” (132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)). Miller followed the Court’s 2010 ruling in Graham v. Florida, where it held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from imposing LWOP on juvenile defendants for non-homicide crimes. The Court required “some meaningful opportunity” for release based on a defendant’s demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation since these crimes (130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)).
At the time of the Miller ruling in 2012, at least 26 states had mandatory LWOP sentencing laws for juveniles. At least 11 states have since amended their juvenile sentencing laws in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that such mandatory sentences are unconstitutional. The new laws generally give judges greater discretion in sentencing juveniles. Some states kept life without parole (LWOP) as a possible sentence for certain offenses, while others eliminated LWOP as a sentencing option. Only some of the laws specify whether or not they apply retroactively to juvenile offenders already sentenced to LWOP. Arkansas, Texas, and Wyoming specify that that their laws apply prospectively only. While California, Delaware, and North Carolina specify that their laws apply retroactively. Pennsylvania’s law applies to convictions after a specified date. The laws of the remaining five states are silent on their retroactivity. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the state’s new law applies prospectively only.
Iowa is the only state that has responded with an executive action. Since the Miller decision, Iowa’s governor commuted the sentences of 38 individuals who were serving mandatory LWOP for crimes they committed as juveniles. But, the state supreme court has since ruled that a commuted sentence that is the functional equivalent of a life sentence without parole is unconstitutional under Miller.
Three state supreme courts (Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Wyoming) have ruled that aspects of their state juvenile sentencing statutes are unconstitutional under Miller. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that by its clear and plain terms a state statute that imposes a mandatory LWOP sentence for juveniles violates the Eight Amendment. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that a statutory sentencing scheme that allows a life sentence with opportunity for conditional release at age 65 years is equivalent to mandatory LWOP and prohibited by Miller. Similarly, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a sentencing statute that provides opportunity for parole only after commutation to a term-of-years sentence is unconstitutional under Miller.
There is disagreement among the courts as to whether the Miller decision should apply retroactively to juvenile offenders already serving LWOP sentences. Five of the 11 U. S. Courts of Appeals (First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits) have not ruled on whether Miller is retroactive but have granted motions to file petitions in federal district courts on the grounds that there was sufficient argument made (i.e., a prima facie showing) by the petitioners that Miller is retroactive. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits ruled that Miller is not retroactive, while the Ninth Circuit ruled that Miller applies retroactively. Federal district courts in Michigan and New York also ruled that Miller should be given retroactive effect. Seven state Supreme Courts have considered the applicability of the Miller decision. The Iowa, Massachusetts, and Mississippi Supreme Courts have ruled that the Miller decision is retroactive, while Supreme Courts in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsyvania ruled that it is not. Two Florida district courts of appeals have ruled that the Miller decision is not retroactive, while two Illinois appellate courts have concluded that Miller is retroactive. (This issue is on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.)
In Connecticut, State of Connecticut v. Ackeem Riley (SC 19109) is the only case currently before the Connecticut Supreme Court that pertains to the constitutional requirements of Miller.
For more information, read the full report.
