Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): law for a defendant who was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense, was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole prior to the effective date of this act, and for whom a resentencing hearing has been ordered.” For that reason, since Defendant is entitled to be resentenced by virtue of Miller and since Defendant was convicted of first degree murder solely on the basis of the felony-murder rule, he must be resentenced to life imprisonment with parole in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.19B(a). As a result, the trial court’s sentence should be vacated and this case should be remanded to the Wake County Superior Court for the entry of a judgment sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment with parole. State v. Lovette,_N.C. App._,_, 737 S.E.2d 432, 441-42 (2013) (<HOLDING>). in. Conclusion Thus, for the reasons set 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prejudice was obvious where counsels failure to seek acquittal on greater offenses caused defendant to be sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without possibility of parole (B) holding that a defendant impermissibly sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in violation of miller should be awarded a new sentencing hearing to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of nc gen stat  15a134019b (C) holding that because minor defendant was mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and because his case was still pending on direct appeal when miller was released the minor defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing (D) holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional (E) recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
Output (English): holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional