In the Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. K-04

- CR -001787 REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND
No. 1081 September Term, 2016

______________________________________

MATTHEW TIMOTHY MCCULLOUGH

v. STATE OF MARYLAND

______________________________________ Eyler, Deborah S., Berger, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

______________________________________ Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

______________________________________ Filed: August 30, 2017

Graeff, Kathryn Grill, J., did not participate in the Court’s decision to report this opinion pursuant to Md. Rule 8-605.1.This case presents the question whether four consecutive 25-year sentences

imposed against a juvenile for nonhomicide crimes co nstitute cruel and unusual punishment, categorically. More specifically, it causes us to consider whether the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010) , that it is a categorical violation of the Eigh th Amendment for a juvenile nonhomicide offender to be sentenced to life without parole (“LWOP”), extends to these multiple-victim, multiplecrime term-of-years sentences. We hold that Graham does not extend to the sentences in this case and they are not otherwise cruel a nd unusual.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS On Tuesday, May 4, 2004, Matthew Timothy McCullough, the appellant, and Martise Williams, both students at Randallstown High School, in Baltimore County, got into an argument when Williams called the appellant a “bitch.” Over the next several days, the controversy escalated. Efforts by school officials to “calm the waters” by meeting with the students and their parents proved fruitless. School officials told appellant not to be on school grounds on Friday, May 7, 2004. He came to the school that day anyway and during the course of a school basketball game let it be known that he and three companions were looking for a fight. School officials ordered them off the grounds. Later that afternoon, when the basketball game was letting out, the appellant returned with his three companions. The appellant was 171⁄2 years old, but his

co mpanions were older and were not students. The four walked together “towards the school where a group of kids were hanging out on the sidewalk.” McCullough v. State ,-2-

No. 2812, Sept. Term. 2004, slip op. at 2 (filed Nov. 28, 2005). According to a teacher who witnessed what happened next, the four approached a group of students, “[a] few words were exchanged, a punch was thrown, and there was a fight.” A crowd of 30 or 40 students formed . When it became clear that the four were not going to prevail, one of them, Tyrone “Fat Boy” Brown, retrieved a handgun from his car. “Fat Boy” and the appellant shared the handgun, using it to fire a total of 12 shots into the crowd. Four students were seriously wounded; one of them was shot in the back of the neck and is paralyzed from the chest down. On November 23, 2004, a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County convicted the appellant of four counts of first degree assault, one for each victim. Sentencing took place on January 27, 2005. Exercising his right to allocution, the appellant made the following statement: Your Honor, I would like to say what happened on May 7th was a tragedy. I’d like to apologize for what happened that day and I’d like to apologize for putting the victims and their families through the pain and suffering. And I know that a punishment is acceptable, and I’m here to accept the punishment. Thank you. When asked by his lawyer whether he thought that , “[a]t some point in [his] life,” he could “rejoin [the] community and be a productive part of society [,] ” the appellant responded, “Yes.” The court sentenced the appellant to the maximum 25 years for each conviction, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 100 years. In doing so, the judge characterized the crimes as “vicious and heinous,” described the “horror” endured by the-3-

families of the students and the fear the crimes created in the community, and recounted the seriousness of the victims’ injuries. He characterized the appellant as a “suburban terrorist” and a “coward” and observed that until sentencing he had shown no remorse and had bragged about “beat[ing] the attempted murder wrap [sic]” and the use of a handgun charge. Eleven years later, on March 25, 2016, the appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that his aggregate sentence of 100 years violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Eight h Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, by order entered on June 27, 2016. The appellant noted a timely appeal, asking: Does a juvenile nonhomicide offender’s prison sentence of 100 years violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the order of the circuit court.
DISCUSSION
A. The Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution , appli cable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, see Robinson v. California , 370 U.S. 660 (1962), provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor-4-

cruel an d unusual punishments inflicted.” 1 Early Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments C lause prohibited barbar ic punishments , such as torture or methods of execution causing undue suffering. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Utah , 99 U.S. 130, 135-36 (1878) (noting in dicta that the punishment of torture is prohibited) ; In re Kemmler , 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890) (“Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death

. . . .”).
In Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910), the Supreme Court recognized in the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause the “precept . . . that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.” See also Coker v. Georgia , 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977) (Eighth Amendment “bars not only those punishments that are ‘barbaric’ but also those that are ‘excessive’ in relation to the crime committed.”). The sentence at issue in Weems was “ cadena temporal ,” a punishment permitted by the law of the Philippines for the crime of making a false entry in a public record

. Cadena temporal co nsists of “imprisonment for at least 12 years and one day, in chains, at hard and painful labor; the loss of many basic civil rights; and subjection to lifetime surveillance.” Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 171 (1976). The Court held that that punishment violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause not because it was barbar ic , but because it was excessive an d disproportionate to the crime for which it was imposed.

1 Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights states : “ That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted, by the Courts of Law.”-5-

After Weems , t wo types of proportionality analyses emerged. In one type, the Court imposed “categorical restrictions on the death penalty.” Graham , 560 U.S. at 59. In some of those cases, the Court categorically prohibited the death penalty because it

wa s unconstitutionally excessive in relation to the severity of a particular offense. S ee Kennedy v. Louisiana , 554 U.S. 407 (2008) (rape of a child); Coker , 433 U.S. at 584 (rape of an adult); Enmund v. Florida , 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (non-triggerman felony murderer). In others, the Court categorically prohibited the death penalty because it wa s unconstitutionally excessive in relation to the diminished culpability of a particular class of offenders. See Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 306 (2002) (“mentally retarded” offenders) ; Rop er v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile offenders). In determining whether to impose a categorical proportionality restriction, the Court has look ed to state legislative enactments and practices to assess whether a national consensus has emerged for or against a particular punishment vis-à-vis a class of offenders, see, e.g., Atkins , 536 U.S. at 313–15; and whether the penological goals of retribution and deterrence a re served by imposin g the punishment. See, e.g., Roper , 543 U.S. at 571. In the other type of proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court reviews “ the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case . . . . to determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive.” Graham , 560 U.S. at
59. Thre e “‘objective criteria’” are relevant to th is analysis: “the gravity of the offense as compared to the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on others in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions

. ”-6-

United States v. Young , 766 F.3d 621, 626 (6 th Cir. 2014) (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 288, 292 (1983) ). Ordinarily, a court will reach the latter two criteria only if its consideration of the first factor gives rise to “an initial inference of gross disproportionality.” Id

. In these proportionality review cases, the Supreme Court almost always has upheld the sentences. See Rummel v. Estelle , 445 U.S. 263, 273 (1980) (“ Outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the p roportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare. ”) For example, in Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957 (1991 ), a plurality of the Court upheld a mandatory LWOP

sentence for the crime of possession of 672 grams of cocaine, stating that the Eight h Amendment ’s “proportionality principle” is “narrow” and “does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence.” Id. at 997, 1001. “[I] t forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” Id

. at 1001. 2
The Court’s 2010 decision in Graham , 560 U.S. at 82, altered the landscape of proportionality review by imposing, for the first time, a categorical sentencing restriction outside the realm of the death penalty. The defendant in Graham was convicted of armed

2 See also Ewing v. California , 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (upholding a sentence of 25 years to life for the theft of golf clubs under California’ s three strikes sentencing scheme); Rummel , 445 U.S. at 263 (upholding a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for a defendant’s third nonviolent felony, the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses); Hutto v. Davis , 454 U.S. 370 (1982) ( per curiam ) (upholding a sentence of 40 years for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and distribution of marijuana). But see Solem , 463 U.S. at 288 (striking down a sentence of life without the possibility of parole under a recidivist sentencing scheme against an adult offender who was convicted, as his third offense, of uttering a “no account” check for $100).-7-

burglary and another offense, both committed when he was 16. In a plea agreement, he was sentenced to probation before judgment. He committed additional crimes, in violation of his probation. The court found him guilty of the armed robbery and

sent enced him to LWOP. 3 The Supreme Court held that sentencing juvenile offenders to LWOP for a nonhomicide crime is cruel and unusual punishment. The Graham Court began its analysis by considering “objective indicia of national consensus” about

LWOP sentences imposed against juvenile nonhomicide offenders. Id

. at 62. It commented that (a t that time ) thirteen states prohibited LWOP sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. 4 Thirty-seven states, and the federal courts, permitted LWOP for juvenile nonhomi cide offenders, but the sentence very rarely was imposed. Relying on a 2009 study and its own independent research, the Court determined that across the nation only 1 23 juvenile offenders were serving LWOP sentences for nonhomicide offenses. See P. Annino, D. Rasmussen, & C. Rice, Juvenile Life without Parole for Non-Homicide Offenses: Florida Compared to Nation , 14 (Sept. 14, 2009) (“ Juvenile LWOP Study ”). Florida accounted for 77 of those offenders and another 10 states accounted for the remaining 46. Thus, while 38 jurisdictions permitted juvenile nonhomicide offenders to be sentenced to LWOP, only 11 jurisdictions had imposed that sentence and, with the exception of Florida, they did so “quite rarely.” Id . at 64.

3 Graham actually was sentenced to life in prison but before then Florida had abolished its parole system, so the sentencing judge knew that the life sentence was without an opportunity for parole.

4 Six of those states prohibited LWOP sentences for any juvenile offender s.-8-

Although the practice of imposing LWOP sentences against juvenile nonhomicide offenders was not as rare as the practices had been in the death penalty cases where the Court had adopted categorical bars, see , e.g ., Atkins , 536 U.S. at 316 (5 executions of “mentally retarded” defendants over 13 years), it was “exceedingly rare” when measured against the number of juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes each year. Graham, 560 U.S. at 67. In the Court’s view, it was “‘fair to say that a national consensus [had] developed against it.’” Id . (quoting Atkins , 536 U.S. at 316). The Court then considered whether in this context LWOP sentences a re justified by the “culpability of the offenders.” Id . In doing so, it followed the same rationale undergirdin g its decision in Roper to categorically prohibit the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In Roper , the defendant was convicted of murder, burglary, and kidnapping , committed when he was 17, and was sentenced to death. Reasoning that the death penalty, being the worst punishment, should be reserved for the worst offenders, the Supreme Court identified “[t]hree general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults [which] demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders[.]” Id. at 569. Th ey suffer from “‘[a] lack of maturity and anunderdeveloped sense of responsibility’” that “‘often result in impetuous and illconsidered actions and decisions. ’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Texas , 509 U.S. 350, 367 (1993)). They “ are more vulnerable or susc eptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure.” Id. And the ir characters are “not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.” Id. at-9-

570. Due to these differ ences , juveniles have “diminished culpability” and once that “ is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults.” Id. at 571. The Roper Court rejected the argument that a categorical bar was unnecessary because the criminal justice system already provides case- by -case consideration of mitigating factors, including the age of the offender. It found that the “differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability. ” Id. at 572–73. Finally, the Court in Graham examined the “penological justifications for the sentencing practice ” of LWOP, i.e. , retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, and found that none of them supported LWOP sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. Id. at 71–74. The “‘heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender.’” Id. at 71 (quoting Tison v. Arizona , 481 U.S. 137, 149 (1987)). Once again relying on Roper , the Court reasoned that “‘the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult,’” and “becomes even weaker with respect to a juvenile who did not commit homicide.” Id. (quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 571). Juveniles “‘will be less susceptible to deterrence [,]’” id. (quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 571), because they lack maturity and have an “‘underdeveloped sense of responsibility[.]’” Id. at 72 (quoting Johnson , 509 U.S. at 367). LWOP sentences have little deterrent effect because they are imposed so rarely

. Id . Incapacitation is not an adequate justification because one cannot-10-

reasonably assu me that a juvenile nonhomicide offender “forever will be a danger to society[.]” Id. at 72. And the LWOP penalty run s contrary to the goal of rehabilitation because it is based on an “irrevocable judgment” that a juvenile nonhomicide offender lack s capac ity for change and is equally culpable as an adult offender. Id. at 74. The Graham Court concluded that the national consensus against LWOP sentences for juveniles, the diminished culpability of juveniles, and the absence of penological justifications together warranted a departure from the ordinary “case- by -case proportionality approach,” id . at 77, for the imposition of “‘ the second most severe penalty permitted by law’” against a juvenile for a nonhomicide crime. Id . at 69 (quoting Harmelin , 501 U.S. at 1001). It emphasized that a LWOP sentence “alters the offender’ s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable[,]” and “deprives the convict of the most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration [.]” Id

. at 69–70. “[T]his sentence ‘means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.” Id

. at 70–71 (quoting Naovarath v. State , 779 P.2d 944, 944 (Nev. 1989)) (second alteration in Graham ). For the same reasons the Court explained in Roper , juveniles cannot “‘reliab[ly] be classified among the worst offenders[,]’” and therefore are undeserving, across the board, of such a harsh sentence. Id . at 68 (quoting Roper , 543 U.S. at 569). Indeed, LWOP “is an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile ” bec ause “a juvenile offender will on average-11-

serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender.” Id.
at 70. The Court concluded:

In sum, penological theory is not adequate to justify life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. This determination; the limited culpability of juvenile nonhomicide offenders; and the severity of life without parole sentences all lead to the conclusion that the sentencing practice under consideration is cruel and unusual. This Court now holds that for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide the Eighth Amendment forbids the sentence of life wit hout parole. Id. at 74 (emphasis added). Further refining its holding, the Court went on to explain:

A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime. What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance. It bears emphasis, however, that whil e the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a life without parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, it does not require the State to release that offender during his natural life . Those who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will remain behind bars for life. It does prohibit States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to reenter society. Id. at 75 (emphasis added). Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile homicide offenders violate the Eighth Amendment, categorically. The Court reasoned that man datory LWOP penalty schemes “prevent the sentencer from taking account of” the diminished culpability of juveniles:-12-

“By removing youth from the balance—by subjecting a juvenile to the same life- without

parole sentence applicable to an adult—these laws prohibit a sentencing authority from assessing whether the law ’s harshest term of imprisonment proportionately punishes a juvenile offen der.” Id. at 474. In addition, mandatory LWOP sentences prevent the

sentence r from taking the “‘mitigating qualities of youth’” into account. Id. at 476 (quoting Johnson , 509 U.S. at 367). The Court concluded that a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles. By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and agerelate d characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatorysentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment ’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 4 89. 5 , 6

5 In Montgomery v. Louisiana , U.S. , 136 S.Ct. 718, 736 (2016), the Supreme Court held that Miller “announced a substantive rule of constitutional law,” and therefore applies retroactively. It noted, however, that resentencing was not necessary, and “[a] State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole.” Id. Addressing the specifics of the defendant’s case, the Court stated: Henry Montgomery has spent each day of the past 46 years knowing he was condemned to die in prison. Perhaps it can be established that, due to exceptional circumstances, this fate was a just and proportionate punishment for the crime he committed as a 17-year-old boy. In light of what this Court has said in Roper , Graham , and Miller about how children are constitutionally different from adults in their level of culpability, however, prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored. Id. at 736 –37.-13- B.
In the case at bar, the appellant contends his 100-year sentence, comprising four consecutive 25 -year sentences, is the functional equivalent of a LWOP sentence for nonhomicide crimes, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment under Graham

. Because he will not be eligible for parole until he has served 50% of each consecutive sentence, the earliest he may be released is 2054, when he will be 67 years old. See Md

. Code (1999, 2008 Repl. Vol.), § 7-301(c)(1)(i) of the Correctional Services Article (“CS”). 7 He argues that by imposing a sentence with a 50-year non-parole period, the

(...continued)

6 Very recently, during the pendency of the instant appeal, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, reversed a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit that had held in LeBlanc v. Mathena , 841 F.3d 256 (4 th Cir. 2016), that a state court adjudication affirming a sentence of LWOP imposed against a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide offense (rape) was an “‘unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.’ ” Virginia v. LeBlanc , __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1726, 1727 (2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). The Supreme Court of Virginia had held that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because even though the sentence was without parole the defendant would be eligible for the state’s geriatric release program, at age 60, and therefore would have a “meaningful opportunity” for release. On federal habeas review, a federal district court reversed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that the geriatric release program did not “provide a meaningful opportunity for juvenile nonhomicide offenders to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id . at 1728. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily reversed, emphasizing that Graham did “not decide that a geriatric release program like Virginia’s failed to satisfy the Eighth Amendment because that question was not presented.” Id at 1728-29. Expressing “no view on the merits,” it held that the Fourth Circuit had not accord ed sufficient deference to the state court adjudication under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Id . at 1729 (citation omitted).

7 CS section 7-301(c)(1)(i) provides that (Continued... )-14-

court denied him a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” while he is of an age to have the chance for reconciliation with society and fulfillment outside prison, contrary to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. See Graham , 560 U.S. at 75. 8 He maintains further that even if the length of the non-p arole portion of his sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment, once he becomes parole eligible, th e Maryland parole system will not afford
him a “meaningful opportunity” for release. He asks this Court to vacate all four sentences for first degree assault and remand the case to the circuit court for resentencing “in accordance with Graham and its progeny.” The State counter s that the appellant was not sentenced to LWOP; rather, he was given four consecutive term -of-years sentences, all within the maximum allowed by law and each for a crime against a different victim. It points out that the Supreme Court has never held a term-of-years sentence categorically unconstitutional and ma intains there are

(...continued) an inmate who has been sentenced to the Division of Correction after being convicted of a violent crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, is not eligible for parole until the inmate has served the greater of:
1. one-half of the inmate’s aggregate sentence for violent crimes; or 2. one-fourth of the inmate’s total aggregate sentence. In the case at bar, all four sentences imposed were for violent crimes and the appellant must serve one-half of his aggregate sentence, or 50 years.

8 He argues that for the same reason his sentence violates Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.-15-

no “principled bases for substituting the statutory maximum set by the legislature with an ad hoc statutory maximum as defined by an appellate court.” Furth er more, the State
argues , the appellant may not challenge the constitutionality of the Maryland parole statutes in a motion to correct an illegal sentence and, in any event, the parole statutes require the Parole Commission to consider “demonstrated maturi ty and rehabilitation” in assessing whether to grant parole to a juvenile nonhomicide offender.
C.
In the seven years since the Supreme Court decided Graham , courts across the country have grappled with what impact, if any, it has on term-of-years sentence s for juveniles sentenced for nonhomicide crimes, with varying results. See Moore v. Biter , 742 F.3d 917, 920 (9 th Cir. 2014) ( dissent from denial of rehearing en banc ) (discussing the split in authority and collecting cases). We shall discuss some of th ese cases below

. 1. Graham does not apply to consecutive term-of-years sentences imposed for multiple offens es Ap pellate courts in five states —Arizona, Louisiana, Virginia , Colorado, and Missouri —have held that Graham ’s categorical prohibition does not apply to multiple term-of-years sentences for multiple offenses that , cumulatively, exceed a juvenile offender’s natural life expectancy. See State v. Kasic , 265 P.3d 410 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011); State v. Brown , 118 So.3d 332 (La. 2013); Vasquez v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 781 S.E.2d 920 (Va. 2016), cert. denied __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 568 (2016) ; Lucero v. People , 394 P.3d 1128 (Co. 2017); People v. Rainer , 394 P.3d 1141 (Co. 2017) ; Willbanks v. Dep’t of Corrections , __ S.W.3d __, 2017 WL 2952445 (Mo. 2017), p et

. for-16-

cert. filed , No. 17-165 (Jul. 28, 2017). Some of these courts have held that Graham never applies outside of LWOP sentences. O thers have held that even if Graham might apply

to one term-of-years sentence for a single offense that is so lengthy as to be a de facto
LWOP sentence , it cannot apply to a length y aggregate sentence resulting from a multitude of offenses committed by the juvenile offender.
Arizona (2011): State v. Kasic , 265 P.3d 410 The defendant was convicted of “thirty-two felonies arising from six arsons and one attempted arson committed over a one-year period beginning when he was seventeen years of age.” 265 P.3d at 411. He received an aggregate sentence of 139.75 years. 9 On appeal, he argued that “the ‘reasons underlying the Court’s decision in Graham [were] applicable to juveniles, such as [him], serving a term -of-years sentence exceeding the juvenile ’s life expectancy.’” Id . at 414 (second alteration in original). The Arizona Court of Appeals disagreed, stat ing that the opinion in Graham “made clear” that the case only applied to juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole; therefore, “ Graham does not categorically bar the sentences imposed in this

case
. ” Id. at 415. The court “decline[d] to extend [ Graham’s ] rea soning in the manner [the defendant] urge[d]. ” Id

. It proceeded with a conventional proportionality review,

“ consider ing all of the circumstances of [the defendant’s] case [,]” including the “gravity of the offenses and the severity of the combined sentence,” and concluded that the

9 Several of the offenses were committed when he was a juvenile; some were committed after he turned 18. Of the aggregate sentence of 139.75 years, 80.5 were for arsons he committed when he was a juvenile. 265 P.3d at 411 n.1.-17-

“sentences [were] not ‘ constitutionally excessi ve.’” Id. Not ing that the defendant did not receive any single sentence longer than 15.75 years, and relying upon the “general rule” that the court will “not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in the proportionality inquiry ,” 10 the court found that “different considerations apply to consecutive term -of-years sentences based on multiple counts and multiple victims.” Id.

at 415–16. Th e “sentences, viewed individually and in the aggregate, further Arizona’ s penological goals and thus reflect a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference. ” Id. at 416 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 11
Louisiana (2013): State v. Brown , 118 So.3d at 332 The defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated kidnapping , for which he was sentenced to life, and four counts of armed robbery, for which he was sentenced to four con current

terms of 10 years. He was 16 when he committed the offenses. The court originally had imposed concurrent sentences, without parole, but amended the sentences post

- Graham . The State took issue with the amendments to the term-of-years sentences. The case came before t he Supreme Court of Louisiana on the question

“ whether, and to what extent, the . . . decision in Graham applies in cases in which the juvenile offender committed multiple offenses resulting in cumulative sentences matching or exceeding his life expectancy without the opportunity of securing early

10 We shall discuss this principle infra

.
11 The opinion in Kasic does not provide any information about whether, and if so when, the defendant would become eligible for parole.-18-

release from confinement on parole. ” 118 So.3d at 335. Observing that Graham did not include any “analysis of sentences for multiple convictions and provide[d] no guidance on how to handle such sentences,” the court concluded that Graham does “not prohibit consecutive term of year sentences for multiple offenses committed [by a juvenile], even if they might exceed a defendant’s lifetime.” Id . at 341. (As we shall discuss, infra , the

same court later

reached a different result in addressing a lengthy term-of-years sentence against a juvenile for one offense.) Virginia (2016 ): Vasquez v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 781 S.E.2d 920 When they were 16 years old, the defendants broke into a townhouse, stole property, and repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted the female occupant at knifepoint.
In a joint jury trial, V asquez was convicted of eighteen felonies and Valentin was convicted of twelve felonies. These crimes included forcible vaginal and anal rape, breaking and entering while armed with a deadly weapon, forcible fellatio, abduction, and robbery. The court sentenced each defendant to multiple term-of-years sentences “which, in the aggregate, equaled 28 3 years for Vasquez, with 150 years suspended, and 148 years for Valentin, with 80 years suspended.” 781 S.E.2d at 926. As a result, Vasquez would serve 133 years of active incarceration and Valentin would serve 68 years. Pursuant to Virginia law, both would become eligible for parole upon reaching the age of 60. Id. at 924 n.3. In a consolidated appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia held th at Graham is not implicated for

“multiple term-of-years sentences imposed on multiple crimes that, by-19-

virtue of the accumulation, exceed the criminal defendant’s life expectancy.” 291 Va. at 925. The multiple sentences imposed by the trial court were “nothing like Graham , which involved a single crime resulting in a single [LWOP] sentence.” Id . at 926. In reaching this result, the Vasquez court was persuaded by the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bunch v. Smith , 685 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Bunch v. Bobby , __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1996 (2013). The defendant in Bunch was convicted of robbing, kidnapping, and repeatedly raping a young woman when he was 16 and was sentenced by an Ohio state court to “consecutive, fixed terms totaling 89 years’ imprisonment.” Id . at 547. After Graham was decided, he peti ti oned, unsuccessf

ully, for habeas relief in state court. He challenged that ruling in federal court. The Sixth Circuit held that the sentence did not “violate clearly established federal law” and, therefore, the habeas petition properly had been denied. 12 It distinguished Graham , noting that Graham “was sentenced to life in prison for committing one nonhomicide offense, [whereas] Bunch was sentenced to consecutive, fixed-term sentences— the longest of which was 10 years —for committing multiple nonhomicide offenses.” Id . at 551. The Sixth Circuit recognized that “Bunch’s 89-year aggregate sentence may end up being the functional equivalent of life without parole,” making it likely that he would

12 Federal habeas review is highly circumscribed. Under the AEDPA, a federal court may reverse a state court adjudication as contrary to clearly established federal law only if the defendant can show that the “ruling [was] ‘objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice.’” Virginia v. LeBlanc , 137 S.Ct. at 1729 (quoting Woods v. Donald , 575 U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 1376 (2015) ( per curiam )).-20-

“not be given the ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ called for in Graham .” Id . Emphasizing that the Graham“Court did not address juvenile offenders, like Bunch, who received consecutive, fixedterm sentences for committing multiple nonhomicide offenses, ” id ., the court concluded that the Graham holding is limited to cases in which LWOP has been imposed for a single nonhomicide offense.
Colorado (2017) : Luc ero v. People , 394 P.3d 1128 & People v. Rainer , 394 P.3d 1141 In two cases decided the same day, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that Graham does not apply to aggregate sentences of 84 years and 112 years, respectively, imposed upon juvenile offenders for nonhomicide crimes. Lucero , 394 P.3d at 1128 ; Rainer , 394 P.3d at 1141. Lucero was convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and two counts of second degree assault. He committed these crimes in the course of a drive-by shooting when he was 15. He was sentenced “ to consecutive term-of-years prison sentences for each count, aggravated as crimes of violence, resulting in an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years[.]” 394 P.3d. at 1129. He would become parole eligible at age 57. Rainer was 17 years old when he broke into an occupied dwelling and “shot one of the home’s inhabitants four times and another inhabitant three times, leaving both in critical conditio n.” 394 P.3d at 1143. He was convicted of “two counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, one count of first -degree burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, and-21-

sentence -enhancement counts for crimes of violence.” Id . Sentenced to an aggregate term of 112 years, he would become parole eligible at age 75. 13
After Graham was decided, the defendants sought post-conviction relief, arguing that their sentences were “the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without parole and denie[d] [them] a meaningful opportunity for release.” Id . Both cases reached the Supreme Court of Colorado, which held that Graham (and Miller ) only apply “where a juvenile is sentenced to the specific sentence of life without the possibility of parole for one offense .” 394 P.3d at 1132 (emphasis added.) “Multiple sentences imposed for multiple offenses do not become a sentence of life without parole, even though they may result in a lengthy term of incarceration.” Id. at 1133. Because “each sentence is a separate pun ishment for a separate offense,” the “proper question on review is whether a sentence is constitutionally disproportionate to the of fense for which it was imposed. ” Id

. ( citing Close v. People , 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002)). O therwise , a defendant could “‘generate an Eighth Amendment dispr oportionality claim simply because [he] had engaged in repeated criminal activity.’” Id . (quoting Close , 48 P.3d at 539). Applying those principles, the court held that the defendants’ sentences were not unconstitutionally disproportionate relative to each offense. 14

13 Rainer initially was sentenced to an aggregate term of 224 years, but his sentence was reduced on direct appeal.

14 A division of the Colorado intermediate appellate court also addressed a Graham challenge to multiple term-of-years sentences in People v. Lehmkuhl , 369 P.3d 635 (Colo. App. 2013). In that case, the defendant was serving an aggregate sentence of (Continued... )-22-

Missouri (2017): Willb anks v. Department of Corrections , SW.3d , 2017 WL 2952445 At age 17, the defendant and two accomplices participated in an armed carjacking, shooting the victim four times. Th e defendant was convicte d of first degree assault, kidnapping, two counts of first degree robbery, and three counts of armed criminal action. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of life for assault; 15 years for kidnapping; 20 years for each robbery count; and 100 years for each armed criminal action count. State statutes required him to serve 85% of his sentences before he could become parole eligible, meaning that he could not be paroled until he was “approximately 85 years old.” Id . at *2. After Graham was decided, the defendant filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that these statutes were “unconstitutional as applied to him.” Id

. On July 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of Missouri, by a majority of judges, held that Graham does not govern cases in which juvenile offe nders w ere “convicted of multiple nonhomicide offenses and received multiple fixed-term sentences.” Id . at *1. In its view, the Graham Court tightly focused its analysis on juvenile offenders serving LWOP sentences and did no t con sider “the thousands” of juveniles serving “multiple fixed-term sentences” that, in the aggregate, w ill exceed their natural life expectancies.

(...continued) 76 years to life imposed for five convictions arising from a burglary of an occupied dwelling and sexual assault committed when he was 17. The court assumed that Graham ’s categorical rule would apply to the multiple sentences, but held that the sentence satisfied the “meaningful opportunity” requirement given that the defendant would be parole eligible at age 67. The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari in that case, but the petition later w as dismissed. Lehmkuhl v. People , 2014 WL 7331019.-23-

Id . at *3. The Court was not persuaded that “penological goals [were] not served by sentencing juveniles to multiple fixed term senten ces.” Id . at *4. 15 Three members of the court dissented. They opin ed that Graham applie s to aggregate term -of-years sentence s for nonhomicide offenses that are so long th at the juvenile offender is “likely to die in prison.” Id . at *7. They noted that s entencing courts are fully “cognizant of the overall effect” of imposing sentences consecutively , so the likelihood that the offender will die in prison is not merely a “collateral result of sentencing the juvenile for multiple crimes.” Id . at *8. The dissenters were persuaded by many of the cases we shall discuss infra , holding that the principles underlying Graham (and Miller ) apply equally to aggregate term-of-years sentences. 16 , 17
2. Graham applies to any sentence imposed against a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide offense when the sentence exceeds the juvenile’s natural life expectancy

15 The defendant was not entitled to relief under a recently enacted Missouri law permitting juvenile offenders serving LWOP sentences to apply for parole after serving 25 years.

16 The defendant in Willbanks filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on July 28, 2017.

17 The Supreme Court of Missouri also decided a second, related case that day: State v. Nathan , __ S.W.3d __, 2017 WL 2952773 (Mo. 2017). The defendant was convicted of second degree murder and multiple nonhomicide crimes arising from a home invasion robbery and murder he committed when he was 16 years old. As modified on direct appeal, he was sentenced to four life terms, plus 45 years. He challenged those sentences as violative of Graham and Miller . The court rejected his argument, reasoning that Graham did not apply because the defendant was convicted of a homicide crime and Miller was inapplicable both because the court considered Nathan’s age when imposing his sentences and because the sentences imposed were not mandatory and were not for LWOP.-24-

Appellate courts in at least five other states—California, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and New Jersey—have reached the opposite result, holding that Graham applies to aggregate term-of-years sentence s imposed on juvenile offenders for multiple nonhomicide crimes when the sentences are the functional equivalent of LWOP. See People v. Caballero , 55 Cal.4 th 262 (Cal. 2012); Henry v. State , 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied

__ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1455 (2016); Gridine v. State , 175 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2015); Kelsey v. State , 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2016) ; Johnson v. State , 215 So.3d 1237 (Fla. 2017); State v. Boston , 363 P.3d 453 (Nev. 2015); State v. Moore , 76 N.E.3d 1127 (Ohio 2016), petition for cert. filed , No. 16-1167 (Mar. 22, 2017); State v. Zuber , 152 A.3d 197 (N.J. 2017), petition for cert. filed , No 16-1496 (June 12, 2017). 18 Two federal

courts of appeal have reached the same conclusion on habeas review of state court

18 Other state courts have held that Miller applies to lengthy term -of-years sentences impos ed for homicide crimes committed by juvenile offenders that may exceed their natural life expectancy, thus entitling them to an individualized sentencing hearing. See People v. Reyes , 63 N.E.3d 884, 888 (Ill. 2016) (“ Miller makes clear that a juvenile may not be sentenced to a mandatory, unsurvivable prison term without first considering in mitigation his youth, immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation.”); Casiano v. Comm ’r of Corr. , 115 A.3d 1031, 1036 (Conn. 2015) (50-year sentence imposed for a homi cide required the trial court to “engage in an individualized sentencing process that accounts for the mitigating circumstances of youth an d its attendant characteristics”) ; Bear Cloud v. State , 334 P.3d 132, 141–42 (Wyo. 2014) (“ Roper / Graham / Miller trilog y require sentencing courts to provide an individualized sentencing hearing to weigh the factors for determining a juvenile’s ‘diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform’ when . . . the aggregate sentences result in the functional equivalent of life without parole. ”); State v. Null , 836 N.W.2d 41, 72 (Iowa 2013) ( Miller “fully applicable” to an aggregate sentence of 75 years imposed for second degree murder and first degree robbery convictions).-25-

adjudic ations. 19 See Moore v. Biter, 725 F.3d 1184 (9 th Cir. 2013), pet. for rehearing en banc denied , 742 F.3d 917 (9 th Cir. 2014); Budder v. Addison , 851 F.3d 1047 (10 th Cir. 2017). All of these courts read Graham as a broad mandate that juvenile nonhomicide

o ffender s receive a meaningful opportunity for release upon a showing of rehabilitat ion, regardless of whether

a LWOP sentence was imposed or aggregate sentences amounting to LWOP were imposed. In some of these jurisdictions , that opportunity is realized b y applying post- Graham statutory relief for LWOP sentences to lengthy term -of-years

sentences ; in others it is accomplished by judicial decree ordering sentence modifi cation

. California (2012): People v. Caballero , 55 Cal.4 th 262 The defendant was 16 years old when he opened fire on three rival gang members, shooting one of them in the upper back. He was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and was found to qualify for statutory sentence enhancement. He was sentenced to 15 years to life, plus 25 years on the first count; and two consecutive terms of 15 years to life, plus 20 years on the second and third counts, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 110 years to life. He would not be parole eligible for over 100 years. He appealed, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Graham

. The Supreme Court of California agreed. In its view, Graham ’s central holding is that a juvenile nonhomicide offender must be given an opportunity during his or her

19 As discussed, supra , the Sixth Circuit rejected a Graham -based challenge to multiple term-of-years sentences resulting in an aggregate sentence that exceeded a juvenile offender’s natural life expectancy, holding that an Ohio appellate court’s affirmance of those sentences was not “contrary to clearly established federal law.” See Bunch , 685 F.3d at 550.-26-

lifetime to “‘demonstrate growth and maturity’ to try to secure [his or her] release[.]” 55 Cal.4 th at 268 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 72-73). Because the aggregate sentence s did not afford the defendant such an opportunity, they were cruel and unusual punishment. The court remanded for resentenc ing in light of “all mitigating circumstances attendant in the juvenile’s crime and life, including but not limited to [the defendant’s] . . . chronological age at the time of the crime, whether [he] was a direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor, and his . . . physical and mental development.” Id . at 268–69. After considering those factors, the court could “impose a time when the juvenile offender will be eligible to seek parole from the parole board.” Id . at 269.
Florida (2015, 2016, & 2017): Henry v. State , 175 So.3d 675, Gridine v. State , 175 So.3d 672 , Kelsey v. State , 206 So.3d 5, & Johnson v. State , 215 So.3d 1237
In Henry , 175 So.3d 675, the defendant was “convicted for committing [as a juvenile] multiple nonhomicide offenses, includi ng three counts of sexual battery while possessing a weapon, two counts of robbery, one count of kidnapping, one count of carjacking, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and one count of possession of marijuana.” Id. at 676. He was sentenced to three concurrent terms of 30 years for the sexual batteries and additional sentences totaling 60 years to run con se cut ive for a total aggregate sentence of 90 years’ imprisonment. He would become parole eligible at age
95. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida resolved a split in authority among the Florida intermediate appellate courts on the impact, if any, of Graham on term-of-years

sentences

. It held that “the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual-27-

punishment under Graham is implicated when a juvenile nonhomicide offender’s sentence does not afford any ‘meaningful opport unity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.’” Id . at 679 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 75). It reasoned that the Graham Court could not have had any “intention of limiting its new categorical rule to sentences denominated under the excl usive term of ‘life in prison’” because, given that “juveniles are different,” the penological goals served in sentencing adult offenders to lengthy prison terms wou ld not necessarily be served by sentencing juvenile offenders to the same lengthy terms. Id . at 680. The court ordered that Henry be resentenced “in light of . . . new juvenile sentencing legislation enacted by the Florida legislature.” Id

. 20 On the same day that the Supreme Court of Florida decided Henry , it also decided Gridine v. State , 175 So.3d 672 (Fl. 2015). Employing the same reasoning, it held that an aggregate 70 -year sentence imposed for crimes committed when t he defendant was 14 years old was cruel and unusual punishment. It remanded the case for the sentencing court to “conduct proceedings in accordance with Henry .” 175 So.3d at 675.
In Kelsey v. State , 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2016), the Court extended Henry to juveniles whose LWOP sentences were vacated post- Graham , but who were resentenced prior to

20 That legislation provided that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, a juvenile sentenced to a lengthy prison term shall “receive[] a review hearing after a designated number of years based on the crime for which the juvenile was convicted to allow the sentencing court the discretion to modify the sentence if the juvenile offender has demonstrated sufficient maturity and reform.” Peterson v. State , 193 So.3d 1034, 1036 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016 ).-28-

the enactment of the new juvenile resentencing legislation. Kelsey had been convicted of four offenses arising from a home burglary and rape he committed when he was 15 years old. His life sentences for two of those offenses were vacated post- Graham and he was resentenced to concurrent 45 -year terms. He appealed from those sentences and the Supreme Court of Florida reversed, clarifying that its holding “that Graham does indeed apply to term-of-years sentences” was not limited to “‘de facto life’ sentences.” Id . at 10. Rather, any juvenile nonhomicide offender sentenced to a lengthy term of years was entitled to the benefit of the judicial review mechanism adopted by the Florida legislature.
Mos t recently, in Johnson v. State , 215 So.3d 1237, 1242–43, the Florida Supreme Court further refined its holding in Henry , opining: [W]e must consider three factors when reviewing a juvenile nonhomicide offender’s term-of-years sentence. Post

– Henry , we must ensure that a juvenile nonhomicide offender does not receive a sentence that provides for release only at the end of a sentence (e.g. a 45 –year sentence with no provision for obtaining early release based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation before the expiration of the imposed term, such as in Kelsey ). Secondly, we must ensure that a juvenile nonhomicide offender who is sentenced post- Henry does not receive a sentence which includes early release that is not based on a demonstration of rehabilitation and maturity (i.e. gain time or other programs designed to relieve prison overpopulation). Last, we must ensure that a juvenile nonhomicide offender who is sentenced post- Henry does not receive a sentence that provides for early release at a time beyond his or her natural life (e.g. a 1,000–year sentence that provides parole- eligibility after the offender serves 100 years). To qualify as a “meaningful opportunity for early release,” a juvenile nonhomicide offender’s sentence must meet each of t he three parameters described in Henry

.-29-

Nevada (2015): State v. Boston , 363 P.3d 453 At age 16, the defendant committed a number of crimes, including kidnapping and “six counts of sexual assault with the use of a deadly weapon.” 363 P.3d at 454. Upon convicti o n, he was sentenced to “14 consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive term of 92 years in prison.” Id. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was gr anted, and the State appealed. The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed “whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile offender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life- without -parole sentence.” Id. It concluded

that “the Graham rule applies to aggregate sentences that are the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. ” Id. at 457. Although

“ Graham provides no direction” on this issue, the Graham Court did not “specifically limit its holding to offenders who were convicted for a single nonhomicide offense.” Id. The court reasoned that permitting courts to impose sentences on juvenile nonhomicide offenders that are the functional equivalent of LWOP will “undermine the [Supreme] Court’s goal of

‘prohibit[ing] States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to reenter society.’” Id. (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 75). Because the defendant’s sentence of almost 100 years was “without a doubt the-30-

functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole[,]” id

. at 458, the court did not analyze at what point a term-of-years sentence attains that status. 21
Ohio (2016): State v. Moore , 76 N.E.3d 1127 When he was 15 years old, the defendant “embarked on a criminal rampage of escalating depravity,” robbing a man and woman at gunpoint before carjacking another woman, robbing her, and raping her repeatedly. 22 76 N.E.3d at 1128. He was convicted of twelve offenses, including three counts each of aggravated robbery and rape and one count of kidnapping. The court sentenced him to the “maximum prison term for each count,” resulting in an aggregate sentence of 141 years, which was subsequently reduced to 112 years. Id . at 1130. He would be eligible for parole at age 92, after serving 77 years of that sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a minimum sentence for a juvenile nonhomicide offender “ that extends beyond the life expectancy of the offender,” is un constitutional

. Id . at 1134. It construed Graham as “protect[ing] juveniles

21 The court noted that while the appeal was pending, the Nevada legislature had passed a bill providing “ juvenile offender [s] parole eligibility after 15 years of incarceration ‘ for having been convicted of an offense or offenses that did not result in the death of a victim.’” State v. Boston , 363 P.3d at 459 (citation omitted; emphasis in Boston ). The court adhered to its holding “that Graham precludes aggregate sentences that constitute the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole against nonhomicide juvenile offenders.” Id. In light of this new law, it vacated the trial court’s grant of habeas corpus relief “because the judiciary [could not] provide him with a better solution tha n that which the Legislature ha[d] already provided. ” Id.

22 Moore’s accomplice and co-defendant was Chaz Bunch, whose federal habeas petition we discussed, supra.-31-

categorically

from a final determination while they are still youths that they are irreparably corrupt and undeserving of a chance to reenter society.” Id . at 1136. It noted that a lthough Graham does not gua rant ee a juvenile nonhomicide offender release during his or her lifetime, it requires that such an offender be given a “‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.’” Id . at 1137 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 75). It found that a sentence that merely allows such offenders to “breathe their last breaths as free people” is not the “meaningful opportunity” envisioned by the Graham Court. Id

. Rather, a juvenile nonhomicide offender must be given an opportunity to show that he or she is entitled to be released to “live part of [his or her] li[fe] in society.” Id . For that reason, Graham applie s equally to sentences of

LWOP and the functional equivalent of LWOP. As the defendant’s first opportunity for release would be at age 92, “well beyond his life expectancy,” his sentence was a “punishment that remove[d] [him] from society without a meaningful chance to demonstrate rehabilitation and obtain release” and “lacked penological justification.” Id . at 1139–40.
R eject ing the argument that Graham was not meant to apply to “multiple, consecutive fixed -term sentences for nonhomicide offenses[,]” the court noted that Graham himself had committed multiple offenses, al though his LWOP sentence was imposed for just one offense. Id . at 1141. It emphasized that even though the sentencing court in Graham had taken Graham’s criminal proclivities into account, the Supreme
Court had reasoned that “‘it [did] not follow that he would be a risk to society for the rest-32-

of his life.’” Id . at 1141–42 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 73.) By imposing a categorical rule for

all juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses, the Graham Court had rejected a “case- by -case approach” that would permit courts to impose life sentences for juveniles who committed “‘particularly heinous crimes.’” Id . at 1142 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 77). “Whether the sentence is the product of a discrete offense or multiple offenses, the fact remains that it was a juvenile who committed the one offense or several offenses and who has diminished moral culpability.” Id . (emphasis in original). The court vacated the defendant ’s sentence and remanded for “resentencing in conformity with Graham .” Id . at 1149. 23 New Jersey (2017) : State v. Zuber , 152 A.3d 197
In two consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Graham applie s to “sentences that are the practical equivalent of [LWOP].” 152 A.3d at 201. In one case, the defendant participated in two separate gang rapes when he was 17. He was

con victed of 10 offenses and was sentenced, “in the aggregate, to 150 years in prison with a 75-year period of parole ineligibility.” Id . at 202. His sentence later was reduced to 110 years, with 55 years of parole ineligibility. He would become parole eligible at
age 72. In the other case, the defendant was 17 when he participated in four armed robberies. He was convicted o f “multiple counts related to the robberies, including one count of felony murder.” Id . at 203. He was sentenced to an aggregate te rm of 75 years

23 As noted, in Moore the State of Ohio filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. It remains pending, and has been scheduled for discussion at the Court’s September 25, 2017 conference.-33-

in prison, with 68 years and 3 months of parole ineligibility. He would become parole eligible at age 85. In the aftermath of Graham , both defendants filed motions to correct illegal

sentences . The cases reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which consolidated the m for decision. The court found that it makes no practical difference whether a juvenile offender receive s a “formal” sentence of LWOP or receives “multiple term-ofyears sentences that, in all likelihood, will keep him in ja il for the rest of his life[.]” Id. at 211. The constitutionality of the sentence should not turn on its “label.” Id . at 212. The court determined that each defendant’s aggregate sentence w as sufficiently lengthy to “trigger the protections of Miller under the Federal and [New Jersey] Constitutions.” 24
Id . at 213. Because the “focus at a juvenile’s sentencing hearing belongs on the real time consequences of the aggregate sentence , ” the sentencing court must consider the “ Miller factors” whether it is s entencing the juvenile to a lengthy term-of-years sentence for a single offense or is sentencing the juvenile to multiple term-of-years sentences for multiple offenses resulting in a lengthy period of parole ineligibility. Id . at 212. The court directed “judges to exercise a heightened level of care before imposing multiple consecutive sentences on juveniles.” Id . at 214. It also urged the New Jersey legislature

24 As discussed, in Miller the Supreme Court held that a juvenile homicide offender cannot be sentenced to a mandatory LWOP and that a sentencing court must take into account the juvenile’s age and maturity in fashioning a sentence. Because one of the defendants was convicted of felony murder, the Zuber court frequently discussed Miller rather than Graham

.-34-

to “enact[] a scheme that provides for later review of juvenile sentences with lengthy periods of parole ineligibility[.]” Id . at 215.
Ninth Circuit (2014): Moore v. Biter , 725 F.3d 1184 At age 16, the defendant “sexually victimize[d] four separate women on four occasions during a five-week period.” Id . at 1186. He was convicted by a California state court of twenty-four counts: nine counts of forcible rape, seven counts of forcible oral copulation, two counts of attempted second degree robbery, two counts of second degree robbery, forcible sodomy, kidnaping with the specific intent to commit a felony sex offense, genital penetration by a foreign object, and the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. The jury found that [the defendant] also used a firearm while committing his crimes. Id

. The court imposed 24 consecutive sentences totaling 254 years and 4 months. He would have to live to the age of 144 to be parole eligible. After Graham was decided, the defendant filed a state habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of his sentence. The trial court denied his petition, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court of California summarily denied review. 25 He then filed his federal habeas petition, which reached the Ninth Circuit.
Th e court held that the California court’s failure to apply Graham to the defendant’s sentence s was contrary to clearly established federal law. It concluded that the sentences w ere “materially indistinguishable from the sentence in Graham ” because the defendant would remain in prison for the rest of his life without a “meaningfu l

25 Caballero, supra , had not yet been decided.-35-

opportunity” to demonstrate any entitlement to release. Id . at 1191. It reasoned that the nonhomicide crimes he committed could not be distinguished in any principled way from those at issue in Graham , because the Graham Court “drew only one line that was crimespecific: it distinguished between homicide and nonhomicide crimes.” Id . at 1192. The trial court’s sentence was the equivalent of LWOP and was imposed for nonhomicide crimes against a juvenile offender. It therefore was unconstitutional. The State filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc . The en banc petition was considered by the entire court and was denied. In a published opinion dissenting from the denial, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, joined by six judges, crit icized the majority for “failing to distinguish one ‘life without parole’ sentence from multiple ‘term-of-years’ sentences .” 742 F.3d at 917. The defendant had committed four

s eparate rapes over five weeks and had been convicted of 24 separate crimes; an d no single sentence exceeded eight years. In the view of the dissenting judges, it was plain that the Graham Court’s analysis only concerned actual LWOP sentences. That was the

“‘ sentencing practice ’” the Graham Court determined was “‘exceedingly rare.’ ” Id . at 919 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 67). The Graham Court did not even “consider the prevalence of sentences like [the defendant’s]—lengthy term-of-years sentences adding up to de facto life imprisonment.” Id . Given that the Graham Court did not include such sentences in its analysis, the dissenters concluded that it did not intend to include the m within its categorical bar

.-36-

Tenth Circuit (2017): Budder v. A ddison , 851 F.3d 1047 The defendant was 16 when he stabbed a 17- ye ar -old girl multiple tim es , raped her repeatedly , and forced her to fellate him. He was convicted by an Oklahoma state court of two counts of first degree rape; one count of assault and battery with a deadly weapon; and one count of forcible oral sodomy. He was sentenced to LWOP for each rape conviction , life with parole for assault and battery , and 20 years for forcible oral sodomy , all to run consecutively. Less than two weeks later, Graham was decided. On direct appeal, the defendant’s LWOP sentences were modified to life w ith parole. The sentences still were to run consecutively. The defendant challenged his sentences again, arguing that because he would have to serve 131.75 years in prison to be eligible for parole, they still violated Graham . The state court held that the defendant’s multiple, consecutive term -of-years sentences did not violate Graham

. On consideration of the defendant’s federal habeas petition premised on the same argument, the Tenth Circuit reversed. In its view, the Graham Court’s decision to imp ose a categorical bar rested on “(1) the ‘sentencing practice’; (2) ‘the nature of the offense’; and (3) ‘the characteristics of the offender.’” Id . at 1055 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 60-61)). The court understood the “sentencing practice” at issue in Graham to “include [] any sentence that would deny the offender a realistic opportunity for release in the offender’s lifetime.” Id

. It pointed out that Graham himself had been sentenced to life in prison, and it was only because the State of Florida had abolished its parole system that his sentence was treated as LWOP. It opined that the protections afforded by the-37-

Eighth Amendment c an not depend upon the label applied to a sentence. The “nature of the offense” is any “nonhomicide” crime committed by a juvenile, regard less of the “number or severity of nonhomicide crimes committed.” Id . at 1057. Graham did not “draw any distinction [] ” in that regard and, in fact, “specifically referred to offenders with multiple crimes and multiple charges, including Budder [the defendant] himself.” Id

. 26 In the court’s view, the Graham Court intended to put an end to the “case specific approach” to sentencing that allows a court to impose a sentence equivalent to LWOP by aggregating multiple, consecutive term -of-years sentences for crimes it considers “‘particularly heinous.’” Id . at 1058 (quoting Graham , 560 U.S. at 77)). Finally, “the characteristics of the offender” encompasses any offender who was a juvenile when he or she committed the nonhomicide offense(s) because Graham recognized that those offenders are less culpable and the penological goals ordinarily served by LWOP

sentences are not served for them.

26 This comment is not entirely accurate. In the section of Graham discussing the Juvenile LWOP Study , the Court referenced a May 4, 2010 article in Tulsa World stating that “since the study was completed, a defendant in Oklahoma has apparently been sentenced to [LWOP] for a rape and sta bbing he committed at the age of 16.” 560 U.S. at 64. This was the reference to Budder. Thus, Budder was included in the Graham Court’s analysis because he was, in fact, serving a sentence (actually two) of LWOP at that time. As discussed, Budder’s LWOP sentences were modified after Graham was decided. So, when Budder’s appeal was before the Tenth Circuit, he no longer was in the category of juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP that he had been in when Graham was decided. The Graham Court did not include Budder in its analysis because he was serving multiple term -of-years sentences that could exceed his life expectancy but because, at that time, he was serving an actual LWOP sentence.-38-

The Tenth Circuit concluded that because the defendant “committed his crimes as a juvenile . . . did not commit homicide[, and] . . . received a life sentence . . . [that] does not provide him a realistic opportunity for release,” his sentence violated “the categorical rule clearly established in Graham ” and the Oklahoma appellate court erred by holding otherwise. Id . at 1059. It reversed and remanded with “instructions to grant [the defendant’s] petition for writ of habeas corpus, . . . vacate [his] sentence, and to direct the State of Oklahoma to resentence [him].” Id . at 1060.
3. Cases holding that Graham may apply to a lengthy term-of-years sentence for one offense (but not multiple offenses) Finally, some state courts have addressed whether Graham applies to a lengthy term-of-years sentence for a single nonhomicide offense, reaching different results depend ing up on the length of the sentence imposed. In State v. Smith , 892 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. 2017), petition for cert. filed , No. 16-9416 (May 30, 2017), 27 the defendant was 16 years old when he and an accomplice robbed a doughnut shop, kidnapped a female employee, sexually assaulted her, and killed her. He plead guilty to kidnapping and burglary, and ultimately was sentenced to 90 years to life. He filed a habeas petition, arguing that his sentence for kidnapping violated Graham . The Supreme Court of Nebraska up held the sentence. It found that because the defendant would be eligible for parole at age 62, the sentence “satisf[ied] the ‘meaningful opportunity’ requirement” of Graham

. Id . at 65. Moreover, t he sentencing court had considered the relevant

27 The petition for certiorari has been scheduled for discussion at the September 25, 2017 Supreme Court conference, along with the petition in Moore, supra

.-39-

mitigating factors and the sentence was not otherwise unconstitutionally excessive relative to the crime of kidnapping

. In State ex rel. Morgan v. State , 217 So.3d 266 (La. 2016), the defendant was convicted of an armed robbery he committed at age 17, and was sentenced to 99 years imprisonment

without parole. He filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, under Graham , which was denied. On appeal, he argued that his sentence was the functional equivalent o f LWOP. The State countered that the court’s precedent in Brown, supra, was dispositive. The Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished Brown

. In that case, the defendant had been “convicted of five offenses resulting in five consecutive sentences which, when aggregated, resulted in a term pursuant to which he woul d have no opportunity for release

. ” Id . at 271–72. By contrast, “the defendant [in the case before it] was convicted of a single offense and sentenced to a single term which affords him no opportunity for release. ” Id. at 272. The court found there to be no difference between a 99-year

sentence without parole for one crime and a LWOP sentence for one crime; therefore, the sentence at issue was “the functional equivalent of life without parole.” Id . at 277. It noted that even if the 99-year sentence was changed to be with parole, the defendant would not be eligible for release until age 101. The court remedied the situation by determining that the defendant qualified for relief under a post- Graham Louisiana statute-40-

making all juvenile offenders serving life sentences for nonhomicide offenses eligible for parole after serving 30 years of their sentences. 28
D

. In Maryland, a court may “correct an illegal sentence at any time.” Md. Rule 4- 345(a). An illegal sentence is “one in which the illegality ‘inheres in the sentence itself;
i.e. , there either has been no conviction warranting any sentence for the particular offense or the sentence is not a permitted one for the conviction upon which it was imposed and, for either reason, is intrinsically and substantively unlawful.’” Colvin v. State , 450 Md. 718, 725 (2016) (quoting Chaney v. State , 397 Md. 460, 466 (2007)). We review the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence de novo

. See Carlini v. State , 215 Md. App. 415, 443 (2013) ( whether a senten ce “is or is not inherently illegal” is “quintessentially a question of law calling for de novo appellate review ”). The appellant does not argue that any of the sentences imposed—25 years for each first degree assault conviction—standing alone, is illega l. He concedes that all are within the statutory range permitted by law. See Md. Code (2002, 2004 Supp.), § 3-202(b) of the Criminal Law Article. Nor does he argue that any one sentence is grossly excessive. He maintains, however, that the aggregate te rm of 100 years resulting from the sentences being imposed consecutively is a functional LWOP sentence imposed against a juvenile

28 On June 29, 2017, the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided that Graham likewise applies to invalidate a LWOP sentence imposed against a recidivist juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime under the state’s “Habitual Offender Law.” State v. Green , __ So.3d __, 2017 WL 2836173 (La. 2017).-41-

nonhomicide offender, which is unconstitutional under Graham ; and an unconstitutional sentence is an illegal sentence. See Wa lker v. State , 53 Md. App. 171, 187 (1982) (sentencing court had broad discretion to impose any legal sentence for common law crime, meaning any sentence that was not “unconstitutional”). Having considered the Graham decision itself and the cases, discussed above, addressing the implications of Graham for term-of-years sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes, we conclude that Graham does not apply. The appellant’s aggregate sentence of 100 years is not unconstitutional and therefore is not illegal. The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham to impose a categorical bar against LWOP sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders was a singular departure from its established Eighth Amendment sentencing jurisprudence, which until then only had adopte d categorical restrictions against imposition of the death penalty. LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders was the only sentencing practice explored and evaluated by the Graham Court. 29 Its analysis was bound up in that particular sentencing practice. The Court “conducted no analysis of sentences for multiple convictions” and the analysis it did conduct “provides no guidance on how to handle such sentences.” Brown , 118 So.3d at 341.

29 We disagree with those courts that have stated that because Graham was convicted of crimes in addition to armed robbery, the Suprem e Court was addressing multiple conviction sentences. The only sentence that was under consideration in Graham was the sentence of life imprisonment for armed robbery; and the sentence clearly was for LWOP because, as we have stated, the sentencing court knew there was no parole system in place when the sentence was imposed.-42-

At the outset of its constitutional inquiry, the Court examined whether there were “objective criteria” of an evolving national consensus against sentencing juvenile offenders to LWOP for nonhomicide crimes. Graham , 560 U.S. at 61. As discussed, in finding that there was, the Court relied upon the Juvenile LWOP Study and its own research, which showed that in the entire country only 123 juvenile offenders were serving LWOP sentences for nonhomicide crimes. The Court did not take into account any aggregate term-of-years sentences, including those for a cumulative number of ye ars exceeding the juvenile’s life expectancy, which could be considered the functional equivalent of LWOP. (And of course, having not considered that, the Court did not consider age at the time of parole eligibility .) 30 Indeed, the Court rejected the St ate of Florida’s argument that it should include in its analysis juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP for nonhomicide and homicide crimes. In the Court’s eyes, those cases did not accurately reflect the national consensus on the specific sentencing practice under consideration because those defendants likely were being “punished in part for the homicide when the judge [made] the sentencing determination [about the nonhomicide crime].” Id . at 63. The Court narrowly tailored its

30 Table A of the Juvenile LWOP Study lists the number of juveniles serving LWOP sentences for nonhomicide crimes in each State for which data was available in 2009. The number of juveniles serving such a sentence in Maryland was zero. At thattime, the appellant was in prison serving the sentences in question here, so his multipleconviction multiple term -of-years sentence obviously was not considered. Neither were the sentences in Luce ro and Rainer , as the list gives the number of juvenile lifers in Colorado as zero. And it lists no such juveniles in New Jersey ( Zuber ) or Missouri ( Willbanks ).-43-

analysis to the particular s entencing category at issue: LWOP imposed against a juvenile offender for one nonhomicide crime. The emerging national consensus the Court found to exist was against sentencing juveniles to LWOP for a single nonhomicide crime. It made no finding of such a consensus against the practice of sentencing juveniles to multiple term-of-years sentences for multiple nonhomicide crimes when the sentences, in the aggregate, exceed the defendant’s life expectancy. In addition, nothing in the Graham Court’s analysis touch ed upon whether such

sentences serve penological justifications that are not served when the defendant is convicted and sentenced for a single crime. We think it plain that they do. The “‘heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender. ’” Id. at 71 (quoting Tison , 481 U.S. at 137). To be

sure, as the Court already had held in Roper and reaffirmed in Graham , as a general class of offenders juveniles are less culpable than adults. Within the world of juvenile offender s, however, one who commits multiple nonhomicide crimes against multiple victims, causing injury to each victim, is more culpable than one who commits the same injury-producing crime against one victim. In Brown v. State , 311 Md. 426, 435 (1988), the Court of Appeals stated the common sense proposition that “[p]unishment for criminal conduct should be commensurate with responsibility and a defendant who terrorizes multiple persons with a handgun i s more culpable than a defendant who terrorizes only one

. ” (Emphasis added.) That proposition is no less applicable among juvenile nonhomicide offenders and does not become inapplicable merely because-44-

juvenile offenders as a group are less culpable than adult offenders. We agree with the courts in Kasic and Willbanks that “different considerations apply to consecutive term-ofyears sentences based on multiple counts and multiple victims[,]” Kasic , 265 P.3d at 415–16; and that Graham did not hold that “pe nological goals [were] not served by sentencing juveniles to multiple fixed-term sentences.” W illbanks , 2017 WL 2952445 at *4. The Graham Court emphasized that the rarity of LWOP sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders in jurisdictions permitting such sentences lessened the deterrent effect of those sentences. Graham , 560 U.S. at 72 (remarking that juveniles are less easily deterred by the threat of punishment and that this is “particularly so when that punishment is rarely imposed”). By contrast, the practice of imposing consecutive term

of-years sentences that cumulatively produce a lengthy aggregate sentence is not rare. See Willbanks , 2017 WL 2952445 at *3 ( Graham Court’s analysis did not touch upon “the thousands” of juveniles serving “multiple fixed-term sentences”). Th us the deterrent effect of those sentences ha s not been diminished in the sa me way
. Nor does the practice of imposing cumulative term-of-years sentences for multiple offenses reflect an “irrevocable judgment” that a juvenile nonhomicide offender has no capacity for change. Graham, 560 U.S. at 74. Rather, it refle cts a series of judgments that for each offense a particular term-of-years sentence within the statutory limit serves the goals of “punishment, deterrence, and rehab ilitation .” See Jennings v. State , 339 Md. 675, 682 (1995); Lucero , 394 P.3d at 1133 (“each sentence is a separate punishment for a-45-

separate offense ”). Viewing the sentences this way adheres to the established case law
h olding that Eighth Amendment proportionality review must address each individual

sentence imposed, not the aggregate sentence that results. In O’Neil v. Vermont , 144 U.S. 323 (1892), wh ere the sentencing court imposed 307 consecutive sentences for liquor law violations, the Supreme Court quoted, in dicta , from the sentencing court’s remarks:

“I t would scarcely be competent for a person to assail the constitutionality of the statute prescribing a punishment for burglary, on the ground that he had committed so many burglaries that, if punishment for each were inflicted on him, he might be kept in prison for life. The mere fact that cumulative punishments may be imposed for distinct offences in the same prosecution is not material upon this question. If the penalty were unreasonably severe for a single offence, the constitutional question might be urged; but here the unreasonableness is only in the number of offences which the respondent has committed. ” Id . at 331. As the Supreme Court of Minnesota recently observed in State v. Ali , 895 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 2017), the O’Neil Court’s dicta has been widely followed by state and federal

court s in assessing proportionality challenges under the Eighth Amendment. 31 See Hawkins v. Hargett , 200 F.3d 1279, 1285 n.5 (10 th Cir. 1999) (“The Eighth Amendmen t

31 Ali involved a Miller challenge to three consecutive life sentences imposed against a juveni le offender for one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of felony murder. The life sentence for premeditated murder was a mandatory LWOP. The Supreme Court of Minnesota vacated that sentence, State v. Ali , 855 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2014), and remanded for a “ Miller hearing.” The trial court did not hold a Miller

hearing because the State stipulated to all three life sentences being with parole. When the case returned to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, it held that Miller did not apply to multiple consecutive sentences that, in the aggregate, are the functional equivalent of a LWOP sentence.-46-

analysis focuses on the sentence imposed for each specific crime, not on the cumulative sentence for multiple crimes.”); 32 United States v. Aiello , 864 F.2d 257, 265 (2d. Cir. 1988) (same); State v. Berger , 134 P.3d 378, 384 (Ariz. 2006) (affirming the imposition of 20 consecutive 10-year sentences for separate convictions for possession of child pornography and remarking that, “as a general rule, this court ‘will not consider the imposition of consecutive sentences in a proportionality inquiry . . . .’”) (quoting State v.
Davis , 79 P.3d 64, 74 (Ariz. 2003)); see also Pearson v. Ramos , 237 F.3d 881, 886 (7 th Cir. 2001) (affirming the imposition of cumulative disciplinary sanctions against a prisoner, opining that “it is wrong to treat stacked sanctions as a single sanction. To do so produces the ridiculous consequence of enabling a prisoner, simply by recidivating, to generate a colorable Eighth Amendment claim”). An appellate court’s holding necessarily incorporates the factual and procedural context for the issue before it. In our view, the courts that read Graham to “hold” that all juvenile nonhomicide offenders must be gi ven an opportunity to seek release at some time, regardless of the individual circumstances (and for some courts, early enough that they can build a life for themselves) are interpreting the case well beyond its actual holding. The holding of Graham is that a juvenile convicted of one nonhomicide crime

32 Hawkins involved a pre- Graham Eighth Amendment challenge to a juvenile offender’s 100 year aggregate sentence for four crimes. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the sentence was not cruel and unusual despite the defendant’s age at the time of the commission of the crimes (13), reasoning, in part, that the length of the sentence would be reduced significantly by good time credits resulting in an active sentence of just over 35 years.-47-

may not be given a LWOP sentence that from the outset affords him no opportunity to obtain release based on growth and maturity. Given the very different considerations that

ar e in play when a juvenile commits multiple nonhomicide crimes against multiple victims and receives multiple term-of-years cumulative sentences, each of which indi vidually is not grossly disproportionate, we cannot say that the Supreme Court’s holding in Graham is implicated. This is not a “same sentence different label” situation. Moreover, the rarity of the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham to impose a categori cal restriction outside the context of the death penalty militates in favor of a narrow construction of its categorical bar. We hold that Graham ’s categorical bar on the imposition of LWOP sentences against juvenile nonhomicide offenders does not apply to a sentence such as the appellant’s sentence that comprises multiple sentenc es imposed for multiple crimes against multiple victims, where no sentence individually is lengthy enough to trigger a Graham -based challenge. Sentences of this sort were not addressed by the Graham Court and are dissimilar from a LWOP sentence (or even a lengthy term-of-years sentence) imposed for a single offense in terms of the penological goals being served. The appropriate Eighth Amendment analysis when there are multiple nonhomicide crimes committed by a juvenile against multiple victims, with no single sentence for LWOP, is whether, upon consideration of all the relevant circumstances (including the age of the offender), each individual sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime for which it was imposed.-48-

Even if we were to adopt the appellant’s position that Graham applies to multiple term-of-years sentences, we nevertheless would hold that the sentences imposed here are not cruel and unusual. The appellant may seek release on parole when he is 67 years old. Most of the cases holding that Graham applies to cumulative term-of-years sentences dealt with much longer periods of parole ineligibility that plainly exceeded the defendant’s life expectancy. See Caballero (age 116); Boston (age 116); Morgan (age 101); Henry (age 95); and Moore (age 92). As the appellant tacitly acknowledges, age 67 is less than his average life expectancy. Therefore, his sentences only would amount to a de facto LWOP sentence if we were to adopt the reasoning of those courts that have held that Graham mandates not only that a juvenile nonhomicide offender be afforded an opportunity for release within his or her lifetime but also an “‘ opportunity to truly reenter society or have a[] meaningful life outside of prison.’” Moore , 76 N.E.3d at 1146 (quoting Casiano v. Comm’r of Corrections , 115 A.3d 1031 (Conn. 2015)). 33 In discussing the harshness of a sentence of LWOP, the Graham Court emphasized that that sentence mean s the juvenile offender wil l “‘remain in prison for the rest of his days,’” 560 U.S. at 70 (quoting Naovarath , 779 P.2d at 944). The sentence is

33 The appellant includes in his brief a long passage from the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s decision in Casiano , 115 A.3d 1044, discussing the fact that while, at the time, the average life expectancy for a male in the United States in 2015 was 76, people living in prison have a reduced life expectancy. The Casiano court reasoned that a lengthy term-of-years sentence that does not exceed a juvenile offender’s life expectancy but results in the loss of opportunities to integrate into society is infirm under Graham and Miller

. In the case at bar, no evidence bearing on the appellant’s life expectancy was included with his motion to correct illegal sentence, however.-49-

an “irrevocable” “forfeiture” of a juvenile offender’s “most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration.” Id . at 69–70. The Gra ham Court clarified that while a state is not required to “guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime,” it must grant him or her a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id . at 75. The Court did not specify when that opportunity must be conferred, instead giving deference to the states to fashion sentencing schemes that provide some opportunity for release. See Virginia v. LeBlanc , __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1726, 1727–29 (2017) (holding that the Supreme Court of Virginia’s determination that its geriatric release program provided a “meaningful opportunity” for release was not “‘contrary to . . . clearly established federal law’ ”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). Each 25-year sentence imposed against the appellant include s the benefit of parole when he has served half of his sentence. While the appellant might not be released during his lifetime, he will have the opportunity to apply for parole when he is 67, whic h we cannot say is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s “meaningful opportunity” language in Graham

. See Smith , 892 N.W.2d at 52 (sentence affording juvenile offender parole eligibility at age 62 satisfies Graham ); Lehmkuhl , 369 P.3d at 635 (parole eligibility at age 67 satisfies Graham ). We now turn to the appellant’s argument , premised largely upon the Fourth Circuit’s since reversed decision in LeBlanc , that under no circumstance will he ever be afforded a “meaningful opportunity” for release under Maryland’s parole system because that system does not treat maturity and rehabilitation as the dispositive factors for-50-

granting parole for juvenile offenders. We disagree with the State that this argument is not cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, but agree that it lacks merit. CS section 7-305 lists ten factors that the Parole Commission shall consider in deciding whether to grant parole. Th ey include: (2) the physical, mental, and moral qualifications of the inmate; (3) the progress of the inmate during confinement . . .;
*** (5) whether there is reasonable probability that the inmate, if released on parole, will remain at liberty without violating the law; (6) whether release of the inmate on parole is compatible with the welfare of society; The COMAR regulations implementing CS section 7-305 go even fu rther, requiring the Parole Commission to consider additional factors when a prisoner applying for parole “committed [his or her] crime[s] as a juvenile.” Those additional factors inc lude: (a) Age at the time the crime was committed; (b) The individual’s level of maturity and sense of responsibility at the time the crime was committed; (c) Whether influence or pressure from other individuals contributed to the commission of the crim e; (d) Whether the prisoner’s character developed since the time of the crime in a manner that indicates the prisoner will comply with the conditions of release; (e) The home environment and family relationships at the time the crime was committed; (f) The individual’s educational background and achievement at the time the crime was committed; and-51-

(g) Other factors or circumstances unique to prisoners who committed crimes at the time the individual was a juvenile that the Commissioner determines to be relevant. COMAR 12.08.01.18A(3). These factors necessarily encompass the maturity and rehabilitation considerations discussed in Graham

. There is nothing in Graham that suggests that they must be the only factors considered by a parole authority in deciding whether a juvenile offender will be release d

. See Graham , 560 U.S. at 75 (remarking that those who “commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for the duration of their lives”).
Fin ally, we note that the appellant’s sentences are not excessively disproportionate to the crimes he committed, under traditional proportionality review. “[C]hallenges based on proportionality will be seriously entertained only where the punishment is truly egregious.” Thomas v. State , 333 Md. 84, 97 (1993). Here, the appellant and his accomplice shot a gun twelve times into a crowd of teenagers outside a high school, seriously injuring four victims, one of whom was left permanently paralyzed. He was

conv icted of four counts of first degree assault, one against each victim, and was sentenced to a 25-year term for each conviction. The sentencing court found that these

sentences —the maximum permitted by statute—were warranted by the particularly heinous nature of the crimes. It noted that the gravity of the offenses was severe and the potential for much greater harm was high. The crime instilled fear in the community at large and had long-lasting repercussions for the victims and their famil ies and friends.-52-

The sentences imposed were not egregious and do not give rise to an inference of gross disproportionality. Because the appellant’s 100-year aggregate sentence does not fall within the categorical ba r imposed by Graham and because the sentences are not otherwise unconstitutionally excessive relative to the crimes committed, they are not illegal as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights

. 34 The circuit court did not err by denying the appellant’s motion

to correct illegal sentence.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE APPELLANT.

34 The “cruel or unusual punishments” clause of Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights has long been construed to have the same meaning as the Cruel and Unusual Punishment s Clause of the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Thomas , 333 Md. at 103 n.5 (“ [W]e perceive no difference between the protection afforded by [the Eighth Amendment] and by the 25th Article of our Declaration of Rights”); Walker v. State , 53 Md. App. 171, 183 (1982) (Eighth Amendment and Article 25 are construed to have the same meaning because “both of them were taken virtually verbatim from the English Bill of Rights of 1689”). Accordingly, there is no basis for the appellant’s argument that he is afforded greater protections by Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights than by the Eighth Amendment.