FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 07, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 26 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 01 07 8- CV-BE-S KENNET H LOGGINS, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us KIM T. THOMAS, Int eri m Co m m is si on er, Alab am a Dep t. o f Co rrec ti on s, THE AT TORNEY GEN ERAL OF THE STATE OF AL ABAMA, LUTHER STRANGE, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, ANDERSON an d F ARRIS , Cir cu itJu dg es . * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:
Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation.Ken ne th Log gi ns was c on vi ct edan d s en te nc edto de ath i n 1 99 5 fo r th e

sa di st ic an d b ru ta l m

ur de r of Vick ie Debl ie ux . Becau se he was s ev en te eny ears ol d wh en he co m

m it te d t he m

ur de r, th e st at e co urts ev en tu al ly set a si de hi s d eat h
se nt en ce b as edon Ro pe r v. Si m m on s, 5 43 U.S. 55 1, 1 25 S.Ct . 11 83 (20 05 ), whi ch he ldth atitwas u nc on st itut io na l t o e xe cu te an y on e who was u nd er ei gh te en y ears of ag e atth e ti m e o f th e cri m e, id . at 5 78 –7 9, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 20 0. Se e Log gi ns v. St at e, No. CR -0 4- 15 67 (Ala . Cri m . App . Dec. 8, 2 00 5) (or de r rem an di ng to tri al
co urt fo r res en te nc in g) . Log gi ns was re se nt en cedto li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t pa ro le , see Log gi ns v. St at e, No. CR -0 4- 15 67 (Ala . Cri m . App . Apr. 2 1, 2 00 6) (u np ub li sh edm em or an du m op in io n) , whi ch was t he ne xtm os t s ev ere p en al ty Alab am a la w pro vi de d fo r th e cri m e th athe ha d c omm it te d, s ee Al a. Co de §§ 13 A5- 39 , 13 A-5 -4 5. Havi ng esc ap edth e d eat h p en al ty L og gi ns no w see ks to esc ap e hi s l ife wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc e, co nt en di ng th atit , to o, i s an un co ns ti tu ti on al pe na lty for hi m be cau se he was n oty eteig ht een y ears ol d a t t he ti m e h e co m m it te d th e m ur de r. I. On t he ni gh t o f Feb ru ary 21 , 19 94 , a fri en d d ro pp edVick ie Debl ie ux off on In te rs ta te 59 ne ar Ch at ta no og a, Ten ne ss ee. Sh e in te nd edto hi tc hh ik e to he r
m ot he r’s ho m e in W es t M on ro e, Lou is ia na , andha d t el ep ho ne d h er m ot he r to let
2he r kn ow tha t s he was c om in g. Deb li eu x m ad e itas f ar s ou th as J effe rs on Co un ty, Alab am a. Unfo rtu na te ly for h er, Ken ne th Log gi ns an d t hr ee o f hi s fr ie nd s wer e al so ou t t ha t n ig ht , dri nk in g b eer a ndus in g d ru gs . They sp ot te d Deb li eu x a t an in te rs ta te ex itin Jef

fers on Co un ty. Pro m is in g t o t ak e h er t o Lo ui si an a, Log gi ns an d the ot he r m en lu red Deb li eu x i nt o t he ir c ar an d the n dro ve he r to a rem ot e woo de d a rea o n t he pre te ns e of pi ck in g up a no th er v eh ic le
. Whe n s he pro te st edbe in g t ak enth ere, Lo gg in s
as su redhe r th atev erythi ng was o kay . Of cou rs e, itwasn ’t. Once t he y arri ve d i n th e woo de d a rea wh ere t he tru ckwas l oc at edan d g otou t o f th e car , Log gi ns an d th e th ree o th er m en be ga n d rin ki ng ag ai n. On e o f th em hi t Deb li eu x i n the he ad wit h abe er b ot tl e. Sh e tr ie d t o ru n a way , bu t t he y tac kl edhe r. As s he lay onth e gr ou nd , Log gi ns an d t he ot he r m en ki ck edDebl ie ux all ov er h er b ody , ov er an d
ov er ag ai n. Whe n t he y

real iz edth atsh e was st il l al iv e d es pi te th e v ic io us be at in g th ey ha d i nf li ct edon he r, Log gi ns st oo d o n h er t hr oa t u nt il sh e g ur gl edup bl oo d. Sh e fi na ll y

sai d “ Okay , I’ ll pa rty.” Thensh e d ie d. Log gi ns an d the othe r m en th rew Deb li eu x’s b od y in to th e b ackof t he ir pi ckup tru ck , anddro ve to Bal d R oc k M ou nt ai n i n a djac en t St . Cla ir C ou nt y , Alab am a. Once th ere, t he y rem ov edall of De bl ie ux ’s clo th es . After p la y in g wi th he r na ke d c or

ps e fo r awh il e, th ey

to ss editov er the si de of acli ff. Log gi ns an d t he
3ot he rs th en lef t an d wen t t o acar was h i n ane arb y to wn. The re t he y

wash edth e bl oo d o utof t he tru ckan d ru m m ag edth ro ug h Deb li eu x’s l ug ga ge be fo re
sc at te rin g i t i n the woo ds ne ar t he car was h. Late r th atni gh t, Lo gg in s an d t wo o f th e o th er m en returne d t o B al d R oc k Mo un ta inan d d efi le d Deb li eu x’s b od y . They cu t o ff h er fi ng ers , andth ey
rem ov edon e o f he r te eth, an d t he y cu t o uthe r le ft l un g. Acco rd in g t o Lo gg in s, th atwas n otall th atth ey

di d. He l at er b rag ge d t o s om e fri en ds th athe an d o ne of th e o th er m en ha d re m ov edpa rt o f Deb li eu x’s h eart , tak ena bi te ou t o f it , and

“ sp ititin to he r fac e.” Log gi ns ’ de se crat io n o f hi s i nn oc en t v ic ti m ’s bo dy was
co ns is te ntwit h s om e o f hi s o th er b eh av io r: h e was in vo lv edwit h a“ sk in he ad gr oup,” he so m et im es sl ep t i n acem et ery, an d h e carrie d a ro un d abl ackno te bo ok in whi chhe in di cat edhi s fa sc in at io n wi th de ath, d y in g, an d “ Sat an wors hi p.” The m orni ng aft er t he m

ur de r Log gi ns ’ gi rlf

rie ndan d a no th er wo m an were lo ok in g fo r hi m . The y

fou ndhi m

an d t wo o f hi s fr ie nd s as le ep ina pi ckup tru ckin th e p ark in g l otof afas t fo odres taur an t. All th ree m en were co ve redin bl oo d a nd
m ud . Whe n a sk edwhatth ey ha d b een do in g, Lo gg in s re pl ie d t ha t t he y “ ha d k il le d a d og or s om ethi ng th atwas c ha si ng [hi s] tru ck .” On Fe brua ry

26 , 19 94 , a gr oup o f hi ke rs on Bal d R oc k M ou nt ai n d is co ve red Deb li eu x’s m

ut il at edbo dy andcal le d t he po li ce. The bo dy was ta ke n t o t he
4m ed ic al ex am in er’s o ffi ce, wh ere aful l au to ps y was c on du ct ed
. The au to ps y
rev eal edth atDebl ie ux ’s face was co ve redwit h l acer at io ns , eve ry bo ne in he r fac e
was frac tu redat l eas t o nc e, al m os t ev ery bo ne in he r skul l was frac tu red , a to ot h
was m is si ng , herlef

t eye was co ll ap se d, h er ri gh t eye hadhe m orrh ag ed , th ere wer e two lar ge in ci si on s i n h er ch es t, h er l eftlu ng ha d b een rem ov ed , sh e h ad18 0 p os tm orte m st ab wou nd s, an d a ll of h er fi ng ers an d b ot h t hu m bs ha d b een cu t o ff. Inth e week s fo ll owi ng th e m ur de r, whe n Lo gg in s an d t he ot he r th ree
m ur de rers “ se em [ed ] bo red ,” th ey “ wou ldki ndof jo ki ng ly say let ’s go pi ckup a hi tc hh ik er” a ndall ud e to ot he r fac ts of t he ir c rime. A m em be r of th e g ro up sh owe d afri en d o f hi s o ne of De bl ie ux ’s sev eredfin ge rs , whi ch he ha d b een ke ep in g i n azip lo ck

ba g. Tha t l edto th e arr es t o f al l fo urof t ho se who ha d pa rti ci pa te d i n Deb li eu x’s m ur de r. II. Thi s i s Lo gg in s’ app eal fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n s eek in g re li ef fro m th e li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e, whi ch was
ev en tu al ly im

po se d o n h im

aft er h e was co nv ic te d fo r th e cri m e o f m ur de r du rin g th e co ur se of aki dn ap pi ng in th e fi rs t d eg ree, i n v io la ti on of Al ab am a Co de § 13 A-5 -4 0( a)(1 ). Log gi ns pre ss es th ree c la im s co nc ern in g h is sen te nc e, bu t b efo re we ad dr es s t he m

we ha ve to ad dr es s t wo p rel im in ary m at te rs . The fi rs t o ne is
5whe th er t ho se th ree c la im s ar e p ro cedur al ly barre d. Th e se co ndon e is whet he r th e

th ree c la im s wer e, in th e la ng ua ge of t he habe as st atut e, “ ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in Sta te co urt p ro ceed in gs ” an d t hu s ar e subjec t t o t he de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardof
rev ie w pre sc rib edby the Ant i-Te rro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). Bo th qu es ti on s i m pl ic at e th e co m

pl ic at edpro cedur al hi st ory of thi s ca se , whi ch we wil l n eedto setou t i n s om e d et ai l, es pe ci al ly to
an swe r th e se co ndqu es ti on . A. On Au gu st5, 1 99 4, a g ran d ju ry in Jef fers onCo un ty, Alab am a, in di ct ed Log gi ns on two co un ts of c ap it al m ur de r. Log gi ns v. St at e, 77 1 S o. 2 d 1 07 0, 1 07 4 (Ala . Cri m . App . 19 99 ). Co un t I c ha rg edhi m un de r Alaba m a Co de § 1 3A- 5- 40 (a)( 1) wit h t he cap it al off en se of m ur de r co m

m it te d dur in g t he co ur se of a ki dn ap pi ng . Log gi ns , 77 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 07 4. Co un t II ch arg edhi m un de r Alaba m a Co de § 1 3A- 5- 40 (a)( 2) wit h t he cap it al off en se of m ur de r co m

m it te d dur in g t he
co ur se of arob be ry . A j ury fou ndLog gi ns gu il ty of cap it al m ur de r, as ch arg edin Co un t I. Lo gg in s, 7 71 So . 2dat 1 07 4. Th e jury didno t fi ndhi m gu il ty of cap it al
m ur de r as ch arg edinCo un t II , bu t i ns te adon th atco un t i t co nv ic te d h im of the le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se of i nt en ti on al bu t n on -cap it al m ur de r un de r Alaba m a Co de § 1 3A- 6- 2( a)(1 ). Log gi ns , 77 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 07 4. Th e jury vo te d 1 0 t o 2 to
6reco m

m en d t ha t Lo gg in s b e se nt en cedto de ath fo r hi s co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t I. Id . Agree in g wi th th e jury’ s re co m m en da ti on , th e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edLog gi ns to de ath fo r hi s co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t I. Itals o s en te nc edhi m to li fe i n p ris on (wit h p aro le eli gi bi li ty) for h is co nv ic ti onon th e le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se of n on cap it al m ur de r un de r Co un t II . Id. Fo ury ears lat er t he Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edLog gi ns ’ cap it al m ur de r co nv ic ti on an d d eat h s en te nc e u nd er Co un t I, b utth e Co urt v acat ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d l ife sen te nc e fo r in te nt io na l m ur de r un de r Co un t II be cau se it
was for th e sa m e co nduc t t ha t was be in g p un is he d u nd er Co un t I. Id . at 1 09 2– 93
. On J un e 2 , 20 00 , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt af firm edth e d eci si on of the Co urt of Cri m in al App eal s. Ex pa rte Log gi ns , 77 1 S o. 2 d 1 09 3 (2 00 0) . Thatco nc lu de d Log gi ns ’ di rectap pe al of h is cap it al co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. On Au gu st29 , 20 01 , Log gi ns fil edinth e st at e tr ia l co urt a t im el y “ Pet it io n fo r Rel ie f fro m

Ju dg m en t” un de r Ru le 32 of t he Alab am a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e. Inth atpe ti ti on he rai se d n um ero us cla im s, i nc lu di ng so m e fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l an d o ne cla im th atim po si ng th e d eath p en al ty on a p ers on who was s ev en te en y ears ol d a t t he ti m e o f hi s cr im e v io la te d “ th e Treat y
an d In te rn at io na l Law Ob li ga ti on s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s an d t he Sta te of Al ab am a.”

7Afte r th e St at e fi le d ares po ns e, th e tr ia l co urt s umm ari ly den ie d Lo gg in s’ Rul e 3 2

pe ti ti on on Decem

be r 10 , 20 01
. At t hi s p oi ntth e p ro cedur al hi st ory be co m es so m ewh atco nv ol ut ed . In M ay 20 02 , so m e si x m on th s af te r hi s R ul e 3 2 p et it io n h adbe en de ni ed , Log gi ns fil eda
m ot io n wi th th e tr ia l co urt as ki ng itto va cat e an d the n re is su e it s Dec em be r 10 , 20 01 ord er d en y in g h is pe ti ti on . Log gi ns v. St at e, 91 0 S o. 2 d 1 46 , 14 8 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 05 ). Log gi ns ’ m ot io n c la im edth athe ha d b eenun aware th athi s R ul e 3 2 pe ti ti on ha d b een de ni edun ti l t he Sta te no ti fie d h im of the factin May 200 2, whi chwas t oo lat e fo r hi m to fil e a t im el y

ap pe al of the de ni al ord er. Id . The t ria l
co urt g ran te d Lo gg in s’ m ot io n o n M ay 28 , 20 02 . On th atsame dat e itis su edan
or de r th atva cat edit s Dec em be r 10 , 20 01 de ni al ord er, an d i m m ed ia te ly reis su ed
an ot he r de ni al ord er. Id . The rea so n Lo gg in s s ou gh t a n ew de ni al ord er, an d t he
reas onth atth e sym

pa th et ic tri al co urt g av e h im on e, was to m ak e itm or e li ke ly th atth e ap pe ll at e co urts wou ldtre atLog gi ns ’ be la te d n ot ic e o f ap pe al as t im el y . W it h t ha t i n m in d o n J un e 4 , 20 02 Log gi ns fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al fro m th e (n ew) de ni al of h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti on , andhe fil edanam en de d n ot ic e o f ap pe al fro m iton Ju ne 25 , 20 02 . Id. The rei ss uanc e ta ct ic di d n otwork . Log gi ns ’ ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f hi s Ru le 32 pe ti ti on was d is m is se d t hr ee years l at er wh en th e Alaba m a Co urt o f
8Cri m in al App eal s d et erm in edth atth e tr ia l co urt h adbe en witho utjuri sd ic ti on to

va cat e an d re is su e it s o rd er d en y in g t he pe ti ti on . Id. The Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s’ op in io n d id , ho wev er, s ug ge stan ot he r way in whi ch Log gi ns co ul d ob ta in ap pe ll at e rev ie w of t he de ni al of h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti on . Poi nt in g t o M ars ha ll v. St at e, 88 4 S o. 2 d 9 00 (Ala . 20 03 ), th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e p ro pe r av en ue fo r se ek in g a n o ut -o f-t im e ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on when th e pe ti ti on er d idno t re cei ve no ti ce o f th e d en ia l i s b y fil in g ape ti ti onfora writof
m an da m us wit h [t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s].” Log gi ns v. St at e, 91 0 S o. 2 d a t 15 0– 51
. Ina sp eci al co nc urrin g o pi ni on , Ju dg e Sh aw al so reco gn iz edth ata rece nt de ve lo pm en t i n t he law wo ul d a ffec t t he res ol ut io n o f th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on . See i d. at15 4 (S ha w, J., co nc urrin g s pe ci al ly). T ha t d ev el op m en t was th e d eci si on in Ro pe r v. Si m

m on s, 5 43 U.S. 55 1, 1 25 S.Ct . 11 83 (20 05 ), whi ch ha d c om e o utjus t te n d ay s ea rli er. The Supr em e Co urt h el d i n R op er t ha t i t i s u nc on st itut io na l t o
ex ecu te cri m in al s wh o wer e und er ei gh te en at t he ti m e th ey co m m it te d t he ir cri m es . Id. at57 8– 79 , 12 5 S .Ct. at12 00 . As Ju dg e Sh aw po in te d o ut , as ares ul t of th atde ci si on , Log gi ns ’ de ath s en te nc e was du e to be va cat ed . Log gi ns v. St at e, 91 0 S o. 2 d a t 1 54
.

9Fo ll owi ng th e p ro cedur al su gg es ti onof t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s,

Log gi ns fil eda pe ti ti on for a writof m an da m

us inth atco urt, wh ic h o f co ur se gr an te d t he pe ti ti on th atitha d i nv it edan d d ire ct edth e tr ia l co urt t o s etasi de (y et ag ai n) an d t he n re is su e (y etag ai n) it s o rd er d en y in g Lo gg in s’ Rul e 3 2 p et it io n. On Ap ril 22 , 20 05 , th e tr ia l co urt d idas i ns tru ct ed , andon May 6, 20 05 Log gi ns fil eda ti m el y

no ti ce o f ap pe al fro m

th e tr ia l co urt’s re -d en ia l o f hi s R ul e 3 2 pe ti ti on . In t ha t ap pe al Log gi ns pre se nt edto th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s t hr ee cat eg or ie s o f co nt en ti on s: on e ai m edat h is de ath s en te nc e, on e ai m edat h is
co nv ic ti on , andon e ai m edat t he way hi s R ul e 3 2 p os t-c on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs ha d be en co nduc te d. Fi rs t, Lo gg in s co nt en de d t ha t h is de ath s en te nc e m us t b e v acat ed
un de r th e Ro pe r de ci si on . Seco nd , he c on te nd edth athi s capi ta l co nv ic ti on m us t be rev ers edbe cau se Ro pe r al so “ es tabl is he [d ] th at[he ] was in cap ab le of f orm in g th e req ui si te in te ntfor

cap it al m ur de r un de r Alaba m a la w.” Cl os el y co nn ect edto th atarg um en t was hi s re la te d a ss ert io n t ha t Ro pe r rev eal edth athe ha d b een

“ im pr op erl y tri edbe fo re a d eat h- qu al ifi edjury, ” whi ch he ass ert edas a no th er gr ou ndforrev ers in g h is co nv ic ti on . Thir d, Lo gg in s co nt en de d t ha t t he tri al co urt ha d i m pr op erl y di sm is se d h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti on wit ho utco nduc ti ng a he ari ng an d wit ho utall owi ng hi m

anop po rtu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e witne ss es who ha d

10subm it te d a ffi da vi ts as p artof the Sta te ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Log gi ns ’ br ie f

co nc lu de d b y

ask in g t he ap pe ll at e co urt t o v acat e b oth h is co nv ic ti on an d h is de ath
se nt en ce, o r in th e al te rn at iv e to va cat e th e d en ia l o f hi s R ul e 3 2 p et it io n a nd
rem an d the cas e to th e tr ia l co urt fo r di sc ov ery an d aful l ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s p et it io n. The Sta te ’s bri ef i n re sp on se arg ue d t ha t t he pro pe r pr oc edur al pa th for Log gi ns to ob ta inRo pe r rel ie f fro m hi s capi ta l s en te nc e was forhi m to fil e a
su cces si ve Ru le 32 pe ti ti on in th e tr ia l co urt. W it h re sp ectto th e o th er t wo i ss ue s in Log gi ns ’ br ie f, th e St at e ch al le ng edhi s ar gu m en t tha t Ro pe r un de rm in edhi s
co nv ic ti on or s om eh ow es tabl is he d t ha t h e was in cap ab le of f orm in g the requi si te in te ntforcap it al m

ur de r un de r Alaba m a law. The Sta te po in te d o utth atRo pe r ad dr es se d “ so le ly . . . the is su e o f se nt en ci ng ” an d a rg ue d t ha t Lo gg in s’ cla im wit h
res pe ctto hi s co nv ic ti on was t he refo re “ m eri tl es s.” As fo r hi s ar gu m en t t ha t h e sh ou ldbe gi ve n a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng on hi s R

ul e 3 2 p et it io n, t he Sta te
co nt en de d t ha t Lo gg in s h adno t m ethi s b ur de n t o s ho w th athe was e nt it le d t o o ne . InLog gi ns ’ rep ly brie f he reh as he d t he arg um en ts th athe ha d m ad e in hi s in it ia l b rie f, co nt en di ng ag ai n tha t Ro pe r requi redno t o nl y th athi s d eat h s en te nc e be setasi de bu t al so th athi s capi ta l co nv ic ti on be ov erturne d b ecau se , he i ns is te d,

11“ th e Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear i n [R op er] th atjuv en il es are i nc ap ab le of f orm in g th e req ui si te in te ntto co m m ita cap it al cri m e.” On Dec em

be r 8, 2 00 5, t he Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s i ss ue d a two -p ag e o rd er re m an di ng th e cas e to th e tr ia l co urt wi th sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns for th atco urt “ to va cat e Log gi ns ’s dea th sen te nc e an d t o re se nt en ce Lo gg in s t o l ife im pr is on m en t wi th ou t t he po ss ib il it y of p aro le .” Log gi ns v. St at e, No. CR -0 4- 15 67 (Ala . Cri m . App . Dec. 8, 2 00 5) (or de r rem an di ng to tri al co urt fo r
res en te nc in g)
. Init s o rd er t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s d is m is se d a ny con cern ab ou t Lo gg in s h av in g ra is edhi s R op er-b as edcla im forth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , po in ti ng ou t t ha t i t h adalr ead y he ldth atRo pe r ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y to cas es on
co ll at eral rev ie w andth atitwas “ well set tl edth atth e le ga li ty of a s en te nc e is a juri sd ic ti on al m at te r th atm ay be ch al le ng edat a ny tim e an d t ha t m ay be no ti ced by thi s C ou rt a t an y

ti m e.” Id
. Tha t quo te d s ta te m en t wi ll be im po rta ntlat er i n
ou r di sc us si on . Ju ston e weekaft er t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s i ss ue d i ts ord er, Log gi ns fil edinth e tr ia l co urt wh athe st y le d a“ Mo ti on forSen te nc in g Hea rin g” in whi ch he forth e fi rs t t im e cl ai m edth atsen te nc in g h im to li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t pa ro le wou ldit se lf b e u nc on st itut io na l. Log gi ns ask edth e tr ia l co urt t o c on du cta

12fu ll he ari ng be fo re re se nt en ci ng hi m . Spe ci fic al ly, Log gi ns st at edhi s i nt en t t o

of fer e vi de nc e an d a rg ue at t ha t h eari ng : [1 .] th at im

po si ti on of a li fe se nt en ce w i t h ou t th e po ss ib il it y of paro le fo r a cri m e co m

m it te d as a juv en il e, is cru el an d u n u s u al pu ni sh m en t pr oh ib it ed by th e Eig hth Am en dm en t of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on , th e an al o g o u s p r ov is io ns of th e Alab am a Co ns ti tu ti on , as well as m ul ti pl e in te rn at io na l l aws an d t reat ie s[ ;] . . .
. [2 .]
. . . th at th e au to m at ic im po si ti on of li fe wit ho ut pa ro le vi ol at es Mr. Log gi ns ’ pr oc edur al du e pr oc es s rig ht s as well as hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig htto a jury[; an d] . . .
. [3 .]
. . . th at [Ro pe r] it se lf fo rb id s juv en il es co nv ic te d in Alab am a fro m be in g se nt en ced to li fe wit ho ut pa ro le
. Und er Alab am a la w, t he de ath pe na lt y an d li fe wit ho ut pa ro le are pu ni sh m en ts st atut or il y res erv ed fo r co m m is si on of “ cap it al m

ur de r.” If a ju ry

co nv ic ts a de fen da ntforth e ne xt hi gh es t de gr ee of ho m ic id e—“ m ur de r”—th e most se ve re pe na lt y he can rece iv e is li fe im pr is on m en t wit h pa ro le
. Giv e n [Ro pe r’s] ho ld in g th at juv en i l e s a r e in cap ab le of fo rm in g th e requi si te in te nt to co m m it cap it al murd er— an d in Alab am a, a de ath se nt en ce an d li fe wit ho ut pa ro le sh are th e sa m e requi s i t e i nt en t el em en t— [Ro pe r] es tabl is he s th at an Alab am a juv en il e can no t fo rm th e requi si te in te nt to be pu ni sh edwit h l ife witho utparo le
. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Fol lo win g up o n h is m ot io n, o n J an ua ry 23 , 20 06 Log gi ns fil edinth e tr ia l co urt a “ Bri ef i n S up po rt o f a Fu ll an d F ai r Sen te nc in g Hea rin g
an d aVali d, Co ns ti tu ti on al Sen te nc e.” Inth atbri ef Lo gg in s co nt en de d t ha t t he

“ fu nd am en ta l i ss ue ” th e cas e n ow p res en te d was “ whe th er [t he tri al co urt] m us t fo ll ow t he li te ral m an da te is su edby the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s an d i m po se an
un co ns ti tu ti on al sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t t he po ss ib il ity of p aro le ” o r whe th er t he
13tri al co urt h ad“ a dut y an d re sp on si bi li ty, as th e tr ie r of factan d t he co urt o f fi rs t im pr es si on , to co ns id er ap pr op ria te fact s an d l eg al arg um en t b efo re i m po si ng a
se nt en ce t ha t m ay

be in va li d u nd er b ot h s ta te an d fe de ral law.” Log gi ns ask edth e
co urt t o p ro vi de hi m

wit h aful l s en te nc e h eari ng an d a fte rward s t o “ im po se a
co ns ti tu ti on al ly perm is si bl e se nt en ce o f li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th th e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le .” The tri al co urt co nduc te d ali m it edsen te nc e h eari ng onJan ua ry 27 , 20 06
. It b eg an th e h eari ng by ackn owl ed gi ng bo th th e req ue stin Log gi ns ’ br ie f th atth e
co urt co ns id er “ a se nt en ce o f li fe as op po se d t o l ife wit ho utpa ro le ” an d a ls o t he St at e’s res po ns e “ ob

jecti ng to an y

sen te nc e o th er t ha n l ife wit ho utth e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le .” Log gi ns ass ert edth athe sh ou ldrece iv e a l es se r se nt en ce b ecau se he was n ot

“ de ath- el ig ib le ,” be cau se th e St at e “ sh ou ldne ve r ha ve ch arg edhi m wit h acap it al of fen se ” an d b ecau se he “ sh ou ldne ve r ha ve be en tri edbe fo re a ju ry th atwas de ath- qu al ifi ed .” He arg ue d: [F]or th e sa m e reas o n s t h a t th e Supr em e Co urt rev ers ed th e [cap it al ] se nt en ce in R o p er v. Si m m on s, th os e ve ry sa m e reas on s m ak e it un co ns ti tu ti on al fo r th is Co urt to sen te nc e Mr. Log gi ns to li fe wit ho ut th e p o s s i bi li ty of paro le an d se nt en ce hi m to a m an da to ry se nt en ce of li fe wi th ou t t he po ss ib il it y of p aro le
.

14And we are pr ep ared
. . . to subm it e v i d e n c e on th at is su e. W e

be li ev e th a t un de r Alab am a la w an d un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on , th e m ax im um th at Mr. Log gi ns can be se nt en ced to as a fir st of fen de r is th e m ax im um th at he co ul d be se nt en ced fo r th e cri m e of m ur de r, whi ch is a le ss er in cl ud ed o f

fen se un de r th e cap it al of fen se st atut e, an d th at an yth in g th at ex ceed s th at m ax im um wou ld be im

pe rm is si bl e as a m atte r of law. He al so arg ue d t ha t: Ro pe r st an ds fo r th e pr op os it io n th at juv en il es can no t b e pr os ecu te d cap it al ly. The y do no t ha ve th e requi si te in te nt to be pr os ecu te d cap it al ly. The Supr em e Co urt sa id th ey ha ve in su ffi ci en t—th es e are th e wor ds —i ns uf

fic ie nt , le ss e r , d i m in is he d cu lp ab il it y . Tho se are th e ph ras es th at th ey us e, a n d th at ne ga te s th e in te nt requi red fo r a cap it al of fen se . Log gi ns th en st at edth athe “ ha d t hr ee ex pe rts , all ren own ed , pre pa redto tes ti fy why a hars h a ndirr ev ers ib le m an da to ry sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le for a juv en il e, an d fo r [h im ] in pa rti cu la r, wou ldno t b e ap pr op ria te .” Log gi ns th en de sc rib edth os e ex pe rts an d o ffer eda syno ps is of wh ateach wou ldha ve sai d. Fi rs t, h e st at edth athe was p rep aredto off er “ a p sychi atris t wh o h as be en in vo lv edinth e stud y

of a do le sc en t b rai n d ev el op m en t” an d wh o wo ul d p res en t

“ th e o ve rwh el m in g s ci en ti fic ev id en ce t ha t t he reg io n o f th e h um anbra inth at reg ul at es im

po rta ntfun ct io ns as i m

pu ls e co nt ro l an d m or al jud gm en t d oe s n ot fu ll y m atur e u nt il a pe rs onreac he s t he earl y twen ti es .” He ch arac te riz edth at
ev id en ce as “ th e u nd erp in ni ng for th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Ro pe r v.

15Si m

m on s” an d a ss ert edth atit“ ap pl ie [d ] sp eci fic al ly to t hi s ca se an d t hi s cr im e.” Seco nd , Log gi ns sai d t ha t h e was pre pa redto cal l a c rimino lo gi stwho was “ an
ex pe rt i n t he fie ldof . . . juv en il e cri m in al be ha vi or ” an d wh o “ was pre pa redto te st ify tha t . . . Mr. Log gi ns rep res en ts whathe cal ls th e p os te r ch il d fo r reh ab il it at io n, wh ic h ali fe wi th ou t a p aro le sen te nc e to ta ll y ne ga te s.” Acco rd in g to Log gi ns , th atcri m in ol og is t wo ul d d is cu ss “ th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he in ci de nt of fen se an d h ow t he y

are g en eral ly con si st en t wi th juv en il e cri m in al be ha vi orth at is un li ke ly to p ers is t b ey on d acert ai n a ge .” Fin al ly, he was p rep aredto cal l “ a lo cal ps y ch ol og is t . . . to tes ti fy th atba se d o n h is ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on of M r. Log gi ns , th atth e p ers on [th e co urt] [was] sen te nc in g t od ay be ars li tt le
res em bl an ce t o t he pe rs on who was c on vi ct edof t he cri m e o ve r twe lv e y ears ag o.” The tes ti m on y

wou ldrev eal “ th atMr. Log gi ns ha s m atur edin to a refo rm ed , cari ng adul t capabl e o f de ve lo pi ng si gn ifi can t p ers on al de ta ch m en ts [si c? ], res is ti ng
ne ga ti ve in flu en ces , andco nt ro ll in g v io le ntor a gg res si ve im pu ls es .” Fu rth erm or e, th e p sycho lo gi stwou ldtes ti fy ab ou t Lo gg in s’ dra m at ic al ly inc reas edve rb al IQ, hi s ab il it y

to sh ow “ ge nu in e em

pa th y forot he rs ,” an d h is “pr of ou ndsh am e fo r hi s
ro le in th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se .”

16Afte r li st en in g t o Lo gg in s’ pro ffer , th e tr ia l co urt sp eci fic al ly dis ag reedwit h

th e as se rti on th at“ Ro pe r v. Si m m on s s ay s t ha t a ju ve ni le can ’t form th e req ui si te in te nt .” The c ou rt e xp la in ed : I th in k y ou equa te [th e Supr em e Co urt’s] us e of th e wor d “ cu lp ab il it y ” wit h in te nt , whi ch I th in k are two co m pl et el y di ffer en t t h i n g s . I th in k th e Supr em e Co urt to m e is sa y in g th at a juv en il e sh ou ld no t be he ld as cu lp ab le as a n a du lt , no t tha t t he y can ’t form

th e req ui si te in te nt
. The co urt p oi nt edou t tha t u nd er Lo gg in s’ reas on in g ajuv en il e co ul d n otbe fou nd gu il ty of an y

type o f m

ur de r oran y

sp eci fic in te ntcri m e. “ [T]he arg um en t can g o al l t he way

do wn t o, wel l, h e sh ou ldjus t b e fo un d g ui lt y of m an sl au gh te r,” the
co urt re as on ed , “ an d b e g et ti ng a two - to twen ty-y ear s en te nc e.” The co urt t he n a ll owe d the Sta te to res po ndto Log gi ns ’ arg um en ts . The St at e ag reedwith t he co urt’s co nc lu si on th atRo pe r di d n otad dr es s t he in te nt el em en t o f a cap it al m

ur de r, th atitdi d n otho ldth ata juv en il e was un ab le to form th e in te ntne ces sary

forth atcri m e. “ A juv en il e can st il l b e ch arg edwit h c ap it al
m ur de r,” the Sta te arg ue d, “ th e o nl y di ffer en ce h ere i s d eat h i s n o l on ge r an
av ai labl e p un is hm en t; ho wev er, l ife wit ho utpa ro le is .” The Sta te als o a rg ue d t ha t th e n atur e o f th e rem an d fr om th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s was li m it edan d t ha t th e tr ia l co urt h adbe en ord eredto res en te nc e Log gi ns to li fe wi th ou t p aro le
.

17The tri al co urt t he n a nn ou nc edit s d eci si on . It s ta te d fi rs t o f al l t ha t i t

ag reedwit h t he Sta te ’s arg um en t t ha t t he rem an d fr om th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h adbe en “ a v ery sp eci fic rem an d,” in st ru ct in g i t t o s en te nc e Log gi ns to li fe wi th ou t p aro le . Butth e im po rta ntpo in t i s t ha t t he tri al co urt d idno t s to p th ere. Italt ern at iv el y

de ni edLog gi ns ’ Ro pe r cl ai m s o n t he m eri ts , st at in g: [E]venif I t ho ug ht th atth e rem an d d id n’t p rev en t m e fro m im po si ng a le ss er se nt en ce, I do no t be li ev e th at th e se nt en ce of li fe wit ho ut paro le is un co ns ti tu ti on al
. I ha ve rev ie wed th e br ie f th at y ou fil ed an d so m e of th e cas es in th e br ie f. I pu ll ed an d read al l th os e. Bu t I do n’t thi nk it ’s an un co ns ti tu ti on al sen te nc e . . . . The co urt the n s en te nc edLog gi ns to li fe wi th ou t p aro le an d t ol d h im th athe ha d th e ri gh t t o app eal hi s n ew se nt en ce. Log gi ns di d app eal , fil in g h is no ti ce o f ap pe al onFeb ru ary 3, 2 00 6, an d o n Mar ch10 , 20 06 he fil edin th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s a “ Mem or an du m of Law in Opp os it io n t o Ap pe ll an t’s New, Unc on st itut io na l Se nt en ce o f Life W it ho ut Paro le .” Tha t m em or an du m pre se nt edan d a rg ue d t he fol lo win g c on te nt io ns : 1. Ro pe r v. Si m

m on s an d Al ab am a st at e la w requi re t hi s C ou rt t o v acat e [Log gi ns ’] un co ns ti tu ti on al sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le
. 2. Se nt en ci ng a juv en il e to li fe wi th ou t t he po ss ib il it y of p aro le co ns ti tu te s cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t. 3. Th e [t ria l] cou rt e rredby notpe rm it ti ng Kenn ey Log gi ns to pre se nt ex pe rt t es ti m on y

du rin g h is sen te nc in g h eari ng .

18On Ap ril 21 , 20 06 , th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s i ss ue d b ot h a n o rd er,

Log gi ns v. St at e, No. CR -0 5- 08 15 (Ala . Cri m . App . Apr. 2 1, 2 00 6) (m em .), an d a n
un publ is he d m em or an du m op in io n, Lo gg in s v . Sta te , No. CR- 04 -1 56 7 (Al a. Cri m . App . Apr. 2 1, 2 00 6) (un publ is he d m em or an du m op in io n) . The o rd er d is m is se d Log gi ns ’ ap pe al of h is ne w sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le on th e g ro un d t ha t t he ap pe ll at e co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on ov er an ap pe al fro m a se nt en ce al on e, as di st in gu is he d fr om

anap pe al of aco nv ic ti on or o f bo th a co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. 1 See Al a. Co de § 1 2- 22 -1 30 (“ A per so n c on vi ct edof acri m in al off en se in th e ci rcu itco urt o r ot he r co urt fr om whi ch anap pe al li es di rect ly to t he Supr em e Co urt o r Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s m ay ap pe al fro m

th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on to th e ap pr op ria te ap pe ll at e co urt.”)
. The Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s’ Apri l 2 1, 2 00 6 m em or an du m op in io n d id affi rm th e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er i ns of ar as itde ni edLog gi ns ’ Ru le 32 pe ti ti on , andin do in g s o t he ap pe ll at e co urt fo cu se d p rimaril y on th e cl ai m s tha t Lo gg in s h ad
or ig in al ly rais edin th atpe ti ti on , in cl ud in g h is m an y cla im s o f in effe ct iv e
The c ourt’s dismissal order c ited one of its ea rlier de cisions, Hart v. State, 939 So. 2d 1 948 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), which also involved a juve nile who was or igina lly sentenc ed to death but whose death se ntence had bee n vacated followingRoper. On r emand a nd at the State’s reque st, Hart had be en sente nced to life without parole, a nd he had a

ppeale d that new se ntence to the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The Court of Criminal Appea ls had dec ided that it lacked jurisdiction over Ha

rt’s appe al bec ause “ [t ]he right of appea l is wholly

statutory” and “ [a] ppeals lie only from judg ments of conviction.” I d. at 950 (quotation marks omitted).
19as si st an ce o f co un se l. Log gi ns , No. CR- 04 -1 56 7, at15 –6 7. Bu t t ho se ori gi na l

pe ti ti on cla im s wer e n otth e o nl y on es di sc us se d a ndde ci de d. On th e th irdpa ge of it s m em or an du m

op in io n, t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s re co gn iz edth e u nu su al pr oc edur al po stur e o f th e cas e in li gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s i nt erv en in g d eci si on in Ro pe r. Id. at3. Itno te d tha t t he cas e h adalr ead y be en rem an de d t o t he tri al
co urt wi th in st ru ct io ns forth atco urt “ to va cat e Log gi ns ’s dea th sen te nc e an d t o
res en te nc e Log gi ns to li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t t he po ss ib il ity of p aro le be cau se Log gi ns was 1 7 years o ldat t he ti m e o f th e cri m e an d, t he refo re, h is de ath
se nt en ce was il le ga l.” Id . To th e en d o f th atst at em en t t he co urt at ta ch edan im po rta ntfoo tn ot e. Inth atfoo tn ot e, nu m be red3, t he co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [a]n il le ga l o r vo idsen te nc e m ay be ch al le ng edat a ny tim e,” an d i t ci te d t o Al ab am a de ci si on al law fo r th atpro po si ti on . Id. at3 n .3. Bac k i n the tex t o f it s o pi ni on th e Co urt t he n re co un te d t ha t “ [t]he [tr ia l]
co urt co m

pl ie d wi th ou r in stru ct io ns an d re se nt en cedLog gi ns to li fe wi th ou t pa ro le on Jan ua ry

27 , 20 06 .” Id . at 3
. Bu t at ta ch edto th atst at em en t was foo tn ot e 4, i n wh ic h t he Co urt el ab or at ed : In hi s br ie f to th is Co urt, Log gi ns arg ue s th at th e Uni te d St at es Supr em e C o urt’s ho ld in g in Ro pe r al so m an da te s th at hi s cap it al -m ur de r co nv ic ti on be va cat ed be cau se , he sa y s, he co ul d no t ha ve fo rm ed th e in te nt to ki ll an d he was ha rm ed by be in g tri ed by a de ath- qu al ifi ed jury. Neit he r of

th es e cl ai m s wer e in cl ud edin Log gi ns ’s pet it io n; th eref or e,
20th ey

are no t pr op erl y be fo re th is Co urt fo r rev ie w. See e.g ., Arrin gt on v. St a t e , 7 1 6 So
. 2d 23 7, 23 9 (Ala
. Cri m . App
. 19 97 ) (“ An ap pe ll an t can no t rai se an is su e on ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on whi ch was no t rai se d in th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on .”). M o r e o ve r, th e so le ho ld in g i n Rop er was th ata juv en il e d efen dantco ul d n otbe sen te nc ed to de ath. The Co urt di d no t ho ld th at juv en il e de fen da nt s co ul d no t fo rm th e requi si te in te nt to k i l l ne ces sa ry fo r cap it al m ur de r or co ul d no t be co nv ic te d of cap it al m

ur de r, an d Log gi ns ’s arg um en t to th e co nt rary is m eri tl es s o n i ts face
. Id . at 3 n.4 . The n ex t t o t he las t quo te d s en te nc e—t he “ Mo reo ve r” s en te nc e—i s im po rta ntto th e is su es be fo re u s, as we wil l ex pl ai n l at er. Afte r th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s ru le d a ga in sthi m , Log gi ns fil edon May 5, 20 06 two ap pl ic at io ns forreh eari ng , on e se ek in g t o a lt er t ha t Co urt’s Ap ril 21 , 20 06 ord er an d t he ot he r se ek in g t o a lt er i ts m em or an du m op in io n o f th e sa m e da te . Each app li cat io n was als o a cco m pa ni edby a sup po rti ng m em or an du m of la w. In t ho se ap pl ic at io ns an d m em or an da , Log gi ns arg ue d, am on g o th er t hi ng s, th atth e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s’ op in io n h adno t ac kn owl ed ge d h is earl ie r
m em or an du m

of l aw op po si ng hi s n ew se nt en ce o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le . He
as se rte d tha t t he Co urt h adno t “ ad dr es s[ ed ] an y of t he fact s o r le ga l ar gu m en ts ”
co nt ai ne d i n t ha t ea rli er m em or an du m . One weeklat er t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s d en ie d wi th ou t d is cu ss io n b ot h o f Log gi ns ’ ap pl ic at io ns fora reh eari ng . On M ay 26 , 20 06 , Log gi ns fil edti m el y pe ti ti on s fo r writof c ert io rari in th e Alab am a Supr em e Co urt s eek in g re vi ew of th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s’
21de ci si on affi rm in g t he de ni al of h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti on an d o f th atco urt’s d is m is sa l

of hi s d ire ctap pe al fro m

hi s l ife wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc e. Log gi ns arg ue d i n h is pe ti ti on s t o t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt t ha t “ [a]ltho ug h t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s ap pr op ria te ly ins tru ct edth e [tria l co urt] to rev ers e Mr. Lo gg in s’
un co ns ti tu ti on al de ath s en te nc e . . . the co urt erro ne ou sl y up he ldth e [t ria l co urt’s]
ne w sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t t he po ss ib il it y of p aro le .” “ The de ci si on s o f th e
co urts be lo w were i n e rro r,” h e in si st ed , “be cau se Mr. Log gi ns ’ ne w sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t t he po ss ib il it y of p aro le m

us t l ik ewis e b e rev ers edun de r th e Ro pe r pr eced en t.” The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d Lo gg in s’ pet it io ns forcert io rari
on Aug us t 1 1, 2 00 6. Mea nwh il e, on Ju ne 5, 2 00 6 Lo gg in s h adfil edin fed eral di st ric t co urt a pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edth e p et it io n o n M ay 27 , 20 09 , bu t i n alat er o rd er tha t co urt g ran te d Log gi ns a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity on th e fo ll owi ng th ree i ss ue s: 1. [W] he th er th e rat io na le of Ro pe r ren de rs se nt en ci ng juv en il es to li fe wit ho utpa ro le un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. 2. [W] he th er Ro pe r r e n d e r s Alab am a’s pr act ic e of ch arg in g juv en il es wit h c ap it al off

en se s u nc on st itut io na l u nd er t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. 3. [W] he th er, aft er Ro pe r, th e au to m at ic res en te nc in g an d th e de ni al of a se nt en ci ng he ari ng to Mr. Log gi ns vi ol at ed th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t an d M r. Log gi ns ’ rig htto du e p ro ces s. 22B.

W e tu rnfir stto th e p rel im in ary qu es ti onof wh ethe r a p ro cedur al bar ap pl ie s to an y of t he cla im s b efo re u s. The sh ort an swe r is th atitdo es no t m at te r. Whe n rel ie f is du e to be de ni edev en if c la im s ar e n otpro cedur al ly barre d, we ca n s ki p
ov er t he pro cedur al ba r is su es , andwe ha ve do ne so in th e p as t. See Vall e v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 45 9 F .3d12 06 , 12 13 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ Here, i t i s
un ne ces sary

to ad dr es s t he is su e o f th e p ro cedur al ba r, be cau se ev en ass um in g t he cl ai m is pre se rv ed , Vall e is no t en ti tl edto habe as rel ie f.”); see als o B el l v . Con e, 54 3 U.S. 4 47 , 45 1, 4 51 n.3 , 12 5 S .Ct. 8 47 , 85 0 n .3 (2 00 5) (de cl in in g t o a dd res s whe th er t he co urt o f ap pe al s co rrec tl y he ldth atth e p et it io ne r ha d n otde fau lt edon hi s cl ai m an d c it in g 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b )(2 ) fo r th e p ro po si ti onth at“ anap pl ic at io n fo r habe as co rp us m ay

be de ni edon th e m eri ts , no twi th st an di ng a pe ti ti on er’s fai lu re t o e xh au stin st at e co urt” ); F ran kl inv. J oh ns on , 29 0 F .3d12 23 , 12 32 (9t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ [A]ppe al s co urts are em po weredto , andin so m e cas es sh ou ld , reach th e m eri ts of h ab eas pe ti ti on s i f th ey are, o n t he ir f

ace a ndwit ho utreg ardto an y fact s tha t co ul d b e d ev el op edbe lo w, clea rly no t m eri to rio us de sp it e an ass ert ed pr oc edur al bar.”); see ge ne ral ly 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( b) (2 ) (“ An ap pl ic at io n fo r a wri t

23of

habe as co rp us m ay

be de ni edon th e m eri ts , no twi th st an di ng th e fai lu re o f th e ap pl ic an t t o e xh au stth e rem ed ie s av ai labl e in th e co urts of the Sta te .”). C. The sec on d p rel im in ary qu es ti on is anim po rta nton e th atwe wil l an swe r. Tha t que st io n i s wh ethe r Log gi ns ’ cl ai m s wer e ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts inth e st at e co urt p ro ceed in gs . The An ti -Terro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct pr ov id es in rel ev an t p art : An ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of habe as co rp us o n b e h a l f of a pe rs on in cu st ody pu rs ua nt to th e ju dg m en t of a St at e co urt sh al l no t be gr an te d wit h re sp ect to an y cl ai m th at was ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts in St at e co urt p ro ceed in gs un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m

— (1 ) res ul te d in a de ci si on th at was co nt rary t o , o r i n vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , cl earl y es tabl is he d F ed eral la w, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . Recen t d eci si on s fr om bo th th is Co urt an d t he Supr em e Co urt h av e cl ari fie d wh atitm ean s fo r a cl ai m to be “ ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in St at e co urt p ro ceed in gs .” InHarri ng to n v . Ric ht er, _

__U.S. __

_, 1 31 S.Ct . 77 0 (2 01 1) , th e Supr em e Co urt ad dr es se d wh ethe r § 2 25 4( d) ap pl ie s ev en if t he st at e co urt’s d en ia l o f rel ie f is “ wit ho utanacco m

pa nyin g s ta te m en t o f rea so ns .” Id . at 7 80 . The p et it io ne r in Harri ng to n was co nv ic te d i n C al ifo rn iast at e co urt an d s en te nc edto li fe wi th ou t

24pa ro le . Id. at78 2. Aft er h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e were a ffi rm edon di rect

ap pe al , he s ou gh t s ta te habe as rel ie f in th e Cal ifo rn iaSupr em e Co urt, as se rti ng
va rio us cla im s. Id . at 7 82 –8 3. Th atco urt d en ie d h is pe ti ti on “ in a on e-s en te nc e
su m m ary or de r,” an d t he pe ti ti on er t he n turne d t o fe de ral co urt. Id . at 7 83 . The di st ric t co urt d en ie d h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on , bu t i n t he co ur se of r ev ers in g t he de ni al of r el ie f th e en ba nc Nin th Cir cu itqu es ti on edwhet he r § 2 25 4( d) de fere nc e ap pl ie d t o t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m s wh en th e Cal ifo rn iaSupr em e Co urt h aden te red
on ly a summ ary de ni al of t ho se cla im s. Id . Rev ers in g t he Nin th Cir cu it ’s de ci si on , th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear t ha t § 22 54 (d ) de fere nc e d id ap pl y in th atsi tu at io n: By it s te rm s § 22 54 (d ) bars rel it ig at io n of an y cl ai m “ ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts ” in st a t e co urt, subjec t on ly to th e ex cep ti on s in §§ 22 54 (d )(1 ) a n d ( d ) (2 ). The re is no te xt in th e st atut e requi rin g a st at em en t of reas on s. The st atut e refe rs on ly to a “ de ci si on ,” whi ch res ul te d fro m an “ a dju di cat io n.” As ev ery Co urt of App eal s to co ns id er th e is su e ha s reco gn iz ed , de te rm in in g whet he r a st at e co urt’s deci si on res ul te d from an un reas on ab le le ga l or factua l co nc lu si on do es no t requi re th atth ere be an op in io n fro m th e st at e co urt ex pl ai ni ng th e st at e co urt’s reas on in g. And as th is Co urt ha s ob se rv ed , a st at e co urt ne ed no t c i t e or ev en be aware of ou r cas es un de r § 22 54 (d ). Whe re a st at e co u rt ’s d e ci si on is un acco m pa ni ed by an ex pl an at io n, th e habe as pe ti ti on er’s bu rd e n s t il l m us t be m et by sh owi ng th ere was no reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e st at e co urt to de ny reli ef.

25Id . at 7 84 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt al so em ph as iz edth ata st at e
co urt n eedno t s ay

th atitwas a dju di cat in g ape ti ti on er’s cl ai m on th e m eri ts in
or de r fo r § 2 25 4( d) to be ap pl ic ab le to th os e cl ai m s i n fe de ral habe as rev ie w: The re is no m eri t e i t h e r in [p et it io ne r’s] arg um en t th at § 22 54 (d ) is in ap pl ic ab le be cau se th e Cal ifo rn ia Supr em e Co urt di d n ot sa y it was ad jud ic at in g hi s cl ai m “ on th e m eri ts .” The st at e co urt di d no t say it was de nyin g th e cl ai m fo r an y ot he r reas on . Whe n a fed eral cl ai m ha s be en pr es en te d to a st at e co urt an d th e st at e co urt ha s de ni ed rel ie f, it m ay be pr es um ed th at th e st at e co urt adju di cat ed th e cl ai m on th e m eri ts in th e ab se nc e of an y in di cat io n or st at e-l aw p r o cedur al pr in ci pl es to th e co nt rary. Id . at 7 84 –8 5. Th e p res um pt io n t ha t a s ta te co urt h as ad jud ic at eda cl ai m

onth e
m eri ts m ay

be ov erco m e, th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d, o nl y “ whe n t he re i s re as on to th in k
so m e o th er ex pl an at io n fo r th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on is m or e li ke ly.” Id. at78 5. The bu rd en of m ak in g t ha t s ho win g i s o n t he pe ti ti on er. See id
. The Supr em e Co urt i n Harrin gt on cit edfav or ab ly thi s C ou rt’s d eci si on in Wrig htv. Se cret ary fo r th e Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, 2 78 F.3d12 45 (11 th Cir
. 20 02 ), whe re we re ach edex act ly the same con cl us io n abo utth e req ui rem en ts of § 22 54 (d ). See Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 4. We exp la in edin Wrig ht : A jud ic ia l de ci si on an d a jud ic ia l op in io n are no t th e sa m e th in g. The ch ie f res po ns ib il it y of jud ge s i s t o d e ci de th e cas e be fo re th em . The y m ay , or m ay no t, at te m

pt to ex pl ai n th e de ci si on in an op in io n. The te xt of § 22 54 (d )(1 ) acce pt s th is orth od ox v i e w. The st atut ory la ng ua ge fo cu se s on th e r e s u l t , n o t on th e reas on in g th at le d to th e res ul t, an d no th in g in t h a t l an gu ag e requi res th e st at e co urt ad jud ic at io n th at ha s
26res ul te d in a de ci si on to be acco m pa ni ed by an op in io n th at ex pl ai ns th e st at e co urt’s rat io na le
. Acco rd in gl y , al l th at is requi red is a reject io n of th e cl ai m onth e m eri ts , no t an ex pl an at io n. Wrig ht , 27 8 F .3dat 1 25 5 (c it at io ns om it te d) . W e al so no te d i n Wrig htth atou r in te rp ret at io n o f § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) was co ns is te ntwit h the “ m ai n t hrus t” of t he AEDPA
am en dm en ts , whi ch “ were i nt en de d t o re qu ire gre at er fe de ral co urt d efer en ce t o st at e co urt d eci si on s an d t o p ro m ot e m or e fed eral -s ta te jud ic ia l co m it y .” Id
.

“ Requi rin g s ta te co urts to pu t fo rwardrat io na le s fo r th ei r de ci si on s s o t ha t fe de ral
co urts can ex am in e th ei r th in ki ng ” we o bs erv ed , “ sm ack s o f a ‘grad in g p ap ers ’ ap pr oa chth atis ou tm od edin th e p os t-AEDPA er a.” Id
. Thi s C ou rt’s re cen t en banc de ci si on in Ch il de rs v. Fl oyd, 64 2 F .3d95 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (en banc ), re-e m ph as iz edth e h ol di ng s o f bo th th e Harri ng to n a nd Wrig htcas es an d t he ir b ro adde fin it io n o f th e te rm “ ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts ” in § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). Id. at96 8. We exp la in edinCh il de rs th at“ [d ]eferen ce t o t he
au to no m y an d d ig ni ty of th e st at e co urts un de rli es th is bro adde fin it io n,” an d we he ldth at“ an ‘ ad

jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts ’ is be stde fin edas a ny sta te co urt d eci si on th atdo es no t re stso le ly on ast at e p ro cedur al ba r.” Id . As a res ul t, “ un le ss th e st at e co urt cl earl y

st at es th atit s d eci si on was b as edso le ly on ast at e p ro cedur al
ru le , we wil l p res um e th atth e st at e co urt h as ren de redanad jud ic at io n o n t he

27m eri ts when th e p et it io ne r’s cl ai m is th e sa m e cl ai m

reject edby the st at e co urt.” Id . at 9 69 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Ourcas e la w als o m ak es cle ar t ha t we ac co rdAEDPA defe ren ce n oton ly to th e ad jud ic at io ns of s ta te ap pe ll at e co urts bu t al so to th os e o f st at e tr ia l co urts th at ha ve no t b eenov erturne d o n app eal . See, e.g ., Ham m on d v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 30 –3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (ex pl ai ni ng in th e co nt ex t o f a p et it io ne r’s in effe ct iv e
as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m th at“ whe re a s ta te tri al co urt re jects a cl ai m

on on e pr on g o f th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l t es t an d t he st at e supr em e co urt, wit ho utdi sapp ro vi ng th atho ld in g, af firm s o n t he ot he r pr on g, b ot h o f th os e st at e
co urt d eci si on s ar e due AEDPA defe ren ce,” i d. at13 32 ); Atwate r v. C ro sb y , 45 1 F.3 d 7 99 , 80 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ [G]ive n t he gre atde fere nc e aff or de d t he de te rm in at io ns of s ta te co urts un de r § 2 25 4, we ca nn otreac h t he co nc lu si onth at th e tr ia l co urt o r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt u nr eas on ab ly app li edBat so n[ v. Ken tu cky , 47 6 U.S. 7 9, 1 06 S.Ct . 17 12 (19 86 ),] in th is cas e.”); cf. Han no n v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 56 2 F .3d11 46 , 11 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (n ot in g t ha t AEDPA de fere nc e to th e fac t fi nd in gs of s ta te co urts “ ap pl ie s t o fa ctfin di ng s m ad e b y bo th st at e tr ia l co urts an d s ta te ap pe ll at e co urts ”). Log gi ns co nt en ds th atth e cl ai m s h e p res en ts to us ha ve no t b een ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in st at e co urt. His arg um en t d is co un ts th e st at e tr ia l
28co urt’s d eci si on an d fo cu se s o n t he Apri l 2 00 6 o pi ni onan d o rd er o f th e Co urt o f

Cri m in al App eal s. He arg ue s t ha t n ei th er t he ap pe ll at e co urt’s 6 8- pa ge op in io n affi rm in g t he de ni al of h is Ru le 32 pe ti ti on no r it s o ne -p ag e o rd er d is m is si ng th e ap pe al of h is sen te nc e ex pl ic it ly addres se d h is cla im s t ha t a s en te nc e o f li fe wit ho utpa ro le for

a juv en il e is un co ns ti tu ti on al , th atch arg in g ajuv en il e wit h a cap it al off

en se is un co ns ti tu ti on al , or t ha t h e sh ou ldha ve be en all owe d t o p res en t
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e athi s re se nt en ci ng . Log gi ns ackno wled ge s, as he m us t, t ha t fo ot no te 4 o f th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s’ op in io n d idad dr es s t wo Ro pe r-b as edcla im s h e h adrai se d i n h is Ju ly 1, 20 05 bri ef t o t ha t co urt: hi s cl ai m th atRo pe r m ean t tha t h is co nv ic ti on forcap it al
m ur de r m us t b e o ve rtu rn edbe cau se juv en il es co ul d n otform th e req ui si te in te ntto
co m m itcap it al m

ur de r, an d h is cla im

th atun de r Ro pe r he co ul d n otbe ch arg edor
co nv ic te d o f cap it al m

ur de r. Of cou rs e, whe n h e fi le d t ha t J ul y 20 05 bri ef Lo gg in s
was st il l u nd er a s en te nc e o f de ath a ndth e cas e h adno t yet be en rem an de d t o t he tri al co urt fo r hi m

to be res en te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le . By th e ti m e th e Co urt of Cri m in al App eal s i ss ue d i ts Apri l 2 1, 2 00 6 o pi ni on , ho wev er, Log gi ns ha d b een
res en te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le an d was co nt es ti ng th e v al id it y of t ha t s en te nc e. The ful l t ex t o f fo ot no te 4 o f th atop in io n re ad s:

29In hi s br ie f to th is co urt, Log gi ns arg ue s th at th e Uni te d St at es Supr em e

Co urt’s ho l d i ng in Ro pe r al so m an da te s th at hi s cap it al -m ur de r co nv ic ti on be va cat ed be cau se , he sa y s, he co ul d no t ha ve fo rm ed th e in te nt to ki ll an d he was ha rm ed by be in g tri ed by a de ath- qu al ifi ed jury. Neit he r of

th es e cl ai m s wer e in cl ud edin Log gi ns ’s pet it io n; th eref or e, th ey are no t pr op erl y be fo re th is Co urt fo r rev ie w. See, e.g ., Arri ng to n v. St at e, 71 6 So
. 2d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 (Ala
. Cri m . App
. 19 97 ) (“ An ap pe ll an t can no t rai se an i ss ue on ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a Ru le 32 pe ti ti on whi ch was no t rai se d in th e Ru le 32 pe ti ti on .”). Mo re o v e r , th e so le ho ld in g i n R op er was th at a juv en il e d efen dantco ul d n otbe sen te nc ed to de ath. The Co urt di d no t ho ld th at juv en il e de fen da nt s co ul d no t fo rm th e requi si te in te nt to ki ll ne ces sa ry fo r cap it al mu r d e r or co ul d no t be co nv ic te d of capi ta l m

ur de r, an d Log gi ns ’s arg um en t to th e co nt rary is m eri tl es s o n i ts face
. Ken ne th Log gi ns v. St at e o f Alaba m a, No. CR -0 4- 15 67 , at 3 n.4 (Ala . Cri m . App
. Apr . 21 , 20 06 ) (unp ub li sh edm em or an du m op in io n) (em

ph as is ad de d)
. Log gi ns arg ue s tha t t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s “ al l b utig no red ” th e Ro pe r cl ai m s h e la te r rai se d i n b ot h t he tri al co urt an d i n h is “ Mem or an du m of Law in Res po ns e to New Sen te nc e o f Life W it ho utParo le ,” whi ch he fil edwit h th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s o n M arch 10 , 20 06 , m or e th an a m on th be fo re t ha t
co urt i ss ue d i ts op in io n a ndord er. On t ha t b as is he co nt en ds th atth os e cl ai m s
were n ot“ ad

jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in Sta te co urt p ro ceed in gs ” an d t he refo re ar e
no t s ub ject t o t he de fere nt ia l s tand ardof r ev ie w requi redby § 22 54 (d )(1 ). See 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d)
.

30Log gi ns ’ arg um en t i s fl awed . For o ne th in g, wh en th e st at e tr ia l co urt

res en te nc edLog gi ns to li fe wi th ou t p aro le onJan ua ry 27 , 20 06 , itdi d a dju di cat e th es e cl ai m s o n the m eri ts . The t ran sc rip t o f th atpro ceed in g re ve al s t ha t Lo gg in s
co nt es te d t he co ns ti tu ti on al ity of asen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le for a juv en il e, arg ue d t ha t “ Ro pe r st an ds forth e p ro po si ti on th atjuv en il es can no t b e p ro se cu te d cap it al ly,” ob

jecte d t o b ei ng au to m at ic al ly resen te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le , and
m ad e a p ro fferof t he m it ig at in g e vi de nc e h e wou ldha ve pre se nt edif t he co urt h ad
co nduc te d aful l s en te nc e h eari ng . Tho se arg um en ts are i n e ss en ce, al th ou gh no t in pre ci se ly the same word s, t he arg um en ts th atLog gi ns is m ak in g b efo re u s n ow. Andth e tr ia l co urt re

jecte d a ll of t ho se arg um en ts when itsen te nc edLog gi ns to li fe wi th ou t p aro le wit ho utall owi ng hi m to pre se ntm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . 2 Bec au se th atreject io n o f th e cl ai m s o n t he m eri ts was n otdi stur be d o n app eal , § 22 54 (d )(1 ) de fere nc e ap pl ie s. See Ham m on d, 5 86 F.3dat 1 33 0– 32
. Eve n i f th e st at e tr ia l co urt h adno t ad jud ic at edLog gi ns ’ cl ai m s o n t he
m eri ts insen te nc in g h im

to li fe wi th ou t p aro le , § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) de fere nc e wou ldst il l ap pl y be cau se of wh athapp en edto th os e cl ai m s i n t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s After it heard a ll of L og g ins’ arguments and his proff er of mitigatingcirc umstances 2 evidenc e, the state trial court r ejec ted his position on t he mer its with t hese w ords: “So even if I thought that the r emand didn’t pre vent me fr om imposi nga lesser sentenc e, I

do not believe that the sentenc e of life without parole is unconstitutional. Ihave r eviewe d the brief that you have filed and some of

the ca ses in the brief

. Ipulled and re ad all those. B ut Idon’t think it i s an unconstitutional sentence.” 31in Log gi ns ’ ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f hi s R

ul e 3 2 p et it io n a tt ack in g h is li fe wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc e. Inth atap pe al Log gi ns m ad e to th e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s es se nt ia ll y

th e sa m e Ro pe r-b as edarg um en ts th athe ha s m ad e in th is Co urt. In a m em or an du m of l aw he m ad e th e fo ll owi ng co nt en ti on s, al l o f whi ch are p rem is edonRo pe r: 1. “ Ro pe r v. Si m

m on s an d Alab am a st at e la w requi re th i s c o urt to va cat e [Lo gg in s’] un co ns ti tu ti on al sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le .” 2. “ Sen te nc in g a juv en il e to li fe wit ho ut th e po ss ib il it y of paro le co ns ti tu te s crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t.” 3. “ The ci rcu it co urt erre d by no t pe rm it ti ng Ken ne y Log gi ns to pr es en t ex pe rt t es ti m on y

du rin g h is sen te nc e h eari ng .” (cap it al iz at io n a lt ered ). Ther eaft er, the Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edth e tri al co urt’s d is m is sa l o f Log gi ns ’ Ru le 32 pe ti ti on . Log gi ns , No. CR- 04 -1 56 7. In it s o pi ni on th e ap pe ll at e co urt n ot edth atLog gi ns ’ de ath s en te nc e h adalr ead y be en
va cat edan d ane w sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le im po se d, an d i t h el d t ha t “ [a]n il le ga l o r vo idsen te nc e m ay be ch al le ng edat a ny tim e.” Id . at 3 & n .3. The ap pe ll at e co urt al so cle arl y st at edanalt ern at iv e g ro un d fo r reject in g Lo gg in s’ cl ai m s t ha t h e co ul d n otbe co nv ic te d o f a cap it al off en se in li gh t o f Ro pe r. The al te rn at iv e g ro un d i t s ta te d was th at“ th e so le ho ld in g i n R op er was th ata juv en il e de fen da ntco ul d n otbe sen te nc edto de ath.” Id. at3 n .4. Tha t al te rn at iv e h ol di ng

32on th e m eri ts ab ou t t he li m it at io ns of t he Ro pe r ho ld in g d is po se s o f al l o f Log gi ns ’

cl ai m s. So , aft er t he tri al co urt h adrul ed , inth e al te rn at iv e, th atLog gi ns ’ cl ai m s were wi th ou t m eri t, t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s, re co gn iz in g tha t “ [a]n i ll eg al
orvo idsen te nc e m ay

be ch al le ng edat a ny tim e,” d eci de d the cla im s o n t he m eri ts
. It r eject edLog gi ns ’ cl ai m s, al l o f whi ch were t ie d t o the Ro pe r de ci si on , bec au se it
co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e so le ho ld in g i n R op er was th ata juv en il e d efen dantco ul d n ot be sen te nc edto de ath.” Wha t t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s d idis en ou gh to be 3
an “ ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts ” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f § 2 25 4( d) . As Harri ng to n, Wrig ht , andCh il de rs m ak e cl ear, t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s d idno t n eedto ackno wled ge Log gi ns ’ cl ai m s ab ou t h is li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e, orto
ex pr es sl y st at e itwas a dju di cat in g t ho se cla im s o n t he m eri ts , or t o g iv e rea so ns why tho se cla im s l ack edm eri t. “ Whe n afed eral cla im ha s b een pre se nt edto a st at e co urt an d t he st at e co urt h as de ni edrel ie f, itm ay be pre su m edth atth e st at e
co urt ad jud ic at edth e cl ai m

on th e m eri ts in th e ab se nc e o f an y in di cat io n o r st at ela w pro cedur al pri nc ip le s t o the co nt rary.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at78 4– 85 . Or,
as we ex pl ai ne d i n C hi ld ers , “un le ss th e st at e co urt cl earl y st at es th atit s d eci si on

L og g ins filed an applica

tion for re hearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals, which w as 3 denied. See supra at 21–22. 33was ba se d s ol el y on a st at e p ro cedur al rul e, we wil l p res um e th atth e st at e co urt ha s re nd eredanad

jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts when th e p et it io ne r’s cl ai m is th e sa m e cl ai m reject edby the st at e co urt.” 6 42 F.3dat 9 69 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Any not io n t ha t t he Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s re li edon a pr oc edur al ba r in reject in g Lo gg in s’ cla im s ab ou t h is li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e is for ecl os edby it s s ta te m en t t ha t “ [a]n i ll eg al or v oi d s en te nc e m ay be ch al le ng edat a ny tim e.” Log gi ns , No. CR- 04 -1 56 7, at3 n .3. At t he lea st , andth e le as t i s al l t ha t i s re qu ire d in th is areaof t he law, t he ap pe ll at e co urt d idno t “ cl earl y st at e[] th atit s d eci si on
was ba se d s ol el y

on a st at e p ro cedur al rul e.” Ch il de rs , 64 2 F .3dat 9 69
. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we owe § 22 54 (d )(1 ) de fere nc e to th e st at e tr ia l an d ap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on s t ha t Lo gg in s’ li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e, an d t he pr oc edur es un de r whi ch itwas i m po se d, ar e n otun co ns ti tu ti on al in li gh t o f th e Ro pe r de ci si on . III. The re ar e n o fa ctua l d is pu te s i n t hi s ca se . The cl ai m s p res en t p ur el y leg al is su es , andun de r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) we are co nc ern edon ly w it h wh ethe r th e st at e co urt de ci si on s re

jecti ng th os e cl ai m s wer e “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y

est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as
34in st ru ct edth atun de r th atpro vi si on “ a st at e p ris on er m us t s ho w th atth e st at e
co urt’s ru li ng on th e cl ai m be in g p res en te d i n fe de ral co urt was so lac ki ng in jus ti fic at io n t ha t t he re was anerro r wel l u nd ers to odan d c om pr eh en de d i n e xi st in g la w beyon d any po ss ib il it y forfai rm in de d d is ag reem en t.” Harrin gt on , 13 1 S .Ct. at 78 6– 87 . Phra se d asec on d way, “ a st at e co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t a c la im lac ks
m eri t p recl ud es fed eral habe as rel ie f so lo ng as ‘fai rm in de d juris ts co ul d d is ag ree’
on th e co rrec tn es s o f th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on .” Id
. at78 6 (q uo ti ng Yarb or ou gh v. Alv arad o, 5 41 U.S. 65 2, 6 64 , 12 4 S .Ct. 2 14 0, 2 14 9 (2 00 4) ). Or ph ras eda th ird way , m or e si m

pl y an d m ay be a li tt le m or e cl earl y : i f so m e fai rm in de d ju ris ts
co ul d a gr ee wi th th e st at e co urt’s d eci si on , alt ho ug h o th ers m ig htdi sa gr ee, fed eral habe as rel ie f m

us t b e d en ie d. Ho wev er i t i s p hr as ed , th e d efer en ce due is he av y
an d p ur po se ly pres en ts a daun ti ng hu rd le fora habe as pe ti ti on er t o c le ar. See id
. (“ If t hi s s ta nd ardis di ffi cu ltto m eet , th atis be cau se itwas m ean t t o b e.”). IV. W it h t ha t d efer en ti al st an da rdin m in d, we fi rs t co ns id er wh ethe r th e Supr em e Co urt h as cle arl y est ab li sh edth at , reg ard le ss of t he pro cedur es us ed , any
se nt en ce o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le forso m eo ne who was ajuv en il e atth e ti m e h e
co m m it te d m ur de r vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t crue l an d

35un us ua l p un is hm en t. The p rimary ba si s fo r arg ui ng th atth e Co urt h as is th e 4 Ro pe r de ci si on an d t he de ci si on in Grah am v. Fl or id a, __

_U.S._

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 01 1 (2 01 0) . In an ap pa ren t at te m ptto ge t ar ou nd§ 2 25 4( d) (1 )’s de fere nt ia l h ur dl e in st eadof c le ari ng it , Log gi ns als o arg ue s t ha t t he re i s a “ gr owi ng na ti on al
co ns en su s” an d a n a lre ady gro wn i nt ern at io na l co ns en su s ag ai ns t s en te nc in g a juv en il e to li fe wi th ou t p aro le ev en fora ho m ic id e cri m e, an d t ha t t reat ie s p recl ud e do in g i t. A. W e b eg in wit h t he Ro pe r an d Gra ha m de ci si on s, al th ou gh itis no t cl ear t ha t we sh ou ldbe co ns id eri ng th e 2 01 0 d eci si on in Grah am in ou r de te rm in at io n o f wha t was cle arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law atth e ti m e th atth e st at e co urts ’ reject io n of Log gi ns ’ cl ai m s b ecame fin al in 20 06 . Und er § 22 54 (d )(1 ) habe as rel ie f is to be gra nt edon ly whe n t he st at e co urt ju dg m en t i s “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edan
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atth e p hr as e “ cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law” in § 2 25 4( d) (1 )
Throughout this opi nion, we use the term “juve nile” to mean some one who wa s under 4 the ag e of e ighte en year s when he committed the crime f or which hewas sente nced. We do so beca use that is the def

inition t he Supreme Court ga ve to the ter

m for Gr aham a

nd Roper purpose s. See Gra ham, ___ U.S. at ___,130 S.Ct. at 2017–18; R oper, 543 U .S. at 574, 125 S.Ct . at 1197–99. 36refe rs to “ th e g ov ern in g l eg al pri nc ip le or p rin ci pl es setfor th by the Supr em e

Co urt atth e ti m e th e st at e co urt re nd ers it s d eci si on .” Lock y er v . And rad e, 53 8 U.S. 63 , 71 –7 2, 1 23 S.Ct . 11 66 , 11 72 (20 03 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Andas we ha ve
reco gn iz ed , “ The co nt en t o f th e § 22 54 (d ) un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n t es t i s d rawn in lar ge pa rt f

ro m th e Teag ue . . . no nr etro act iv it y do ctrin e an d the de ci si on s
ex pl ic at in g i t,” a nd“ [u ]nde r Teag ue a ne w rul e o f cri m in al pro cedur e g en eral ly
m ay no t b e ap pl ie d i n afed eral habe as pro ceed in g wh ere t he jud gm en t i n q ue st io n be cam e fi na l b efo re t he rul e was an no un ced .” Sch wab v. Cr os by, 451 F.3d13 08 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; s ee Teag ue v. Lan e, 48 9 U.S. 2 88 , 10 9 S.Ct . 10 60 (19 89 ). Bu t t he Teag ue no n- ret ro act iv it y do ctrin e h as two ex cep ti on s, an d o ne of th em fit s the rul e an no un cedin Grah am . The ex cep ti on th atfit s i s t he on e fo r ne w
ru le s “ pr oh ib it in g acert ai n c at eg ory of p un is hm en t fo r a cl as s o f de fen da nt s be cau se of the ir s ta tu s o r of fen se .” Pen ry

v. Ly naug h, 4 92 U.S. 30 2, 3 30 , 10 9 S.Ct . 29 34 , 29 53 (19 89 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by A tk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 30 4, 1 22 S.Ct . 22 42 (20 02 ). The que st io n i s wh ethe r th e ex cep ti on s t o t he Teag ue no n- ret ro act iv it y

do ctrin e su rv iv edth e AEDPA am en dm en ts an d l iv e o n i n th e p art ia l co di fic at io n o f th e d oc tri ne th atis § 2 25 4( d) (1 ). See g en eral ly Schwab , 45 1 F .3dat 1 32 2– 24 (ex pl ai ni ng th e rel at io ns hi p b etween th e Teag ue no n37ret ro act iv it y do ctrin e an d § 22 54 (d )(1 )). W e h av e si de st ep pe d t ha t que st io n be fo re, s ee Gro ss m an v. Mc Don ou gh , 46 6 F .3d13 25 , 13 41 n.1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) , an d we a re co nt en t t o d o s o a ga in be cau se th e an swe r wil l n otaffe ctth e res ul t i n th is cas e. It wi ll no t af

fectth e res ul t b ecau se , eve n c on si de rin g Gra ha m alo ng with Ro pe r, “ fai rm in de d ju ris ts ” co ul d c on cl ud e th atitis co ns ti tu ti on al ly perm is si bl e to im po se a li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e o n ajuv en il e co nv ic te d o f ho m ic id e. Or,
reco gn iz in g t ha t t he bu rd en is on Log gi ns , he c an no t s ho w th at“ th ere i s n o po ss ib il it y

fai rm in de d ju ris ts ” co ul d re ach th atco nc lu si on . See Harr in gt on , 13 1 S.Ct . at 7 86 . There are a n um be r of reas on s t ha t h e can no t s ho w th at
. Fi rs t, t he Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r he ld , or e ve n s ta te d i n d ic ta , th atth e Co ns ti tu ti on bars a li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e fo r a juv en il e co nv ic te d o f m ur de r. Neit he r Ro pe r no r Grah am he ldor s ai d t ha t. The h ol di ng of R op er i s s im pl y th at 5 Nor, if it mattere d, has any other c ourt. In ever

y decision on point that we c ould find, 5 courts fa ced w ith the issue have he ld that a life without parole sentenc e may constitutionally

be imposed on a juvenile who c ommits murder. See , e.g ., State v. Ninham, 797 N.W.2d 451, 463, 471 (Wis. 2011); S tate v. Andr ews, 329 S.W.3d 369, 377–78 (Mo. 2010); Meadoux v. S tate, 325 S.W .3d 189, 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); St ate v. Pierc e, 225 P.3d 1146, 1147–48 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010); State v. Mar

tin, 773 N.W.2d 89, 97–99 (Minn. 2009); S tate v. Allen, 958 A.2d 1214, 1233–36 (Conn. 2008); Wallace v. State, 956 A .2d 630, 638–41 (De l. 2008); State v. Craig , 944 So. 2d 660, 664–65 (L a. Ct. App. 2006). Whil e not controlling , those state dec isions support the proposition that fe dera l law is not clea rly established to the contr ary by Roper, Gr aham, or

any other de cision. See Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 643 & n.2, 123 S.Ct . 1848, 1854 & n.2 ( 2003) (c oncludingthat a state court de cision was not an “ objectively unrea sonable a

pplication of cle arly

established law” based 38“ [t]he Eig ht h a ndFo urte en th Am en dm en ts for bi d i m po si ti on of the de ath p en al ty
on off en de rs who were u nd er t he ag e o f 18 when th ei r cri m es were co m m it te d.” Ro pe r, 54 3 U.S. at57 8, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 20 0. Th e d eci si onin Grah am is si m pl y th at

“ [t]he Co ns ti tu ti on pro hi bi ts th e im po si ti on of ali fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e o n a juv en il e o ffen de r who di d n otco m m itho m ic id e.” Grah am , 13 0 S .Ct. at20 34
. Log gi ns arg ue s, i n e ffec t, t ha t ev enif R op er an d Gra ha m di d n otactua ll y ho ldth atjuv en il es co ul d n otbe sen te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le form ur de r, th ey di d i m pl y th at . In fa ctan d i n l aw, ne it he r de ci si on do es im pl y th at , anditwou ld
no t m at te r if

th ey di d. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t o nl y th e actua l ho ld in gs of i ts de ci si on s ca n “ cl earl y est ab li sh []” fede ral law fo r § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) pu rp os es . See Ca rey v. M us la di n, 5 49 U.S. 70 , 74 , 12 7 S .Ct. 6 49 , 65 3 (2 00 6) (“ [C]lea rly est ab li sh edFed eral law i n § 22 54 (d )(1 ) refe rs to th e h ol di ng s, as op po se d t o t he di ct a, . . . . ” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ); Ya rb or ou gh v. Al va rad o, 54 1 U.S. 6 52 , 66 0, 1 24 S.Ct . 21 40 , 21 47 (20 04 ) (“ Fo r pu rp os es of 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ), cl earl y

est ab li sh edlaw as de te rm in edby thi s C ou rt r efer s t o t he in part on similar dec isions by other state c ourts (empha sis omit ted)); L eavitt v. Ara ve, 383 F .3d 809, 819 (9th Cir. 2004) (notingthat the Supreme Court “ does not ig nore the experience of the lower c ourts as illuminating whe ther the r ule contende d for is a de velopment in the law ove r which re asonable jurists could disagr ee” (quotation marks omitted) (c iting L ambrix v. S ingle tary , 520 U.S. 518, 538, 117 S.C t. 1517, 1530 (1997) ; Caspar i v. Bohlen, 510 U .S. 383, 393–95, 114 S.Ct . 948, 955–56 (1994); String er v. B lack, 503 U.S. 222, 236–37, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 1140 (1992); Butler v. McKe llar, 494 U.S. 407, 415, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217–18 (1990).

39ho ld in gs , as o pp os edto th e d ic ta , . . . .” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ); Wil li am s v .

Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 3 62 , 36 5, 1 20 S.Ct . 14 95 , 14 99 (20 00 ) (“ [T]he p hr as e ‘clear ly
es tabl is he d F ed eral law, as de te rm in edby [thi s] Cou rt’ refe rs to th e h ol di ng s, as op po se d t o t he di ct a, . . . . ”). Bec au se im pl ic at io ns are n otactua l h ol di ng s, t he im pl ic at io ns of S up rem e Co urt d eci si on s ca nn otcle arl y est ab li sh fed eral law fo r § 22 54 (d )(1 ) pu rp os es an ym or e th an di ct a can . Bu t ev en if i m

pl ic at io ns di d c ou ntin th e § 22 54 (d )(1 ) an al y si s, t he Supr em e Co urt d idno t i m

pl y in Ro pe r orin Grah am

th ata li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e is im pe rm is si bl e fo r a juv en il e who co m m it s a h om ic id e. If an yth in g, Ro pe r im pl ie s th atitis pe rm is si bl e. The R op er ca se in vo lv eda de fen dantwho se sen te nc in g si tu at io n was ex act ly lik e th atof Lo gg in s: th e d efen da ntwas s ev en te en at t he ti m e he co m m it te d m ur de r, an d h e was co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc edto de ath. 5 43 U.S. at 55 6, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 18 7. Th e st at e supr em e co urt l at er v acat edhi s s en te nc e,
reas on in g t ha t “ a n at io na l co ns en su s” ha d d ev el op edag ai ns t s en te nc in g ju ve ni le of fen de rs to de ath. Id . at 5 59 , 12 5 S .Ct. at11 89 . In t he same op in io n i t
res en te nc edth e d efen da ntto li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le . Id. at55 9– 60 , 12 5 S.Ct . at 1 18 9. Th atis m at eri al ly ide nt ic al to whathapp en edinLog gi ns ’ cas e: he, to o, was sen te nc edto de ath fo r a m ur de r he co m

m it te d wh en he was s ev en te en ,

40an d h e, to o, was res en te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le . In Ro pe r th e Supr em e Co urt

affi rm edth e jud gm en t o f th e st at e supr em e co urt, wh ic h h adva cat edth e de fen da nt ’s dea th sen te nc e an d i m po se d ali fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e. Id . at 5 60 , 57 8– 79 , 12 5 S .Ct. at11 89 –9 0, 1 20 0 (n ot in g tha t t he st at e supr em e co urt h ad“ se t
as id e [t he de fen dant ’s] de ath s en te nc e an d re se nt en cedhi m to ‘ li fe i m

pr is on m en t wit ho uteli gi bi li ty for p ro ba ti on , par ol e, orrel eas e ex cep t b y actof t he Gov ern or ,’ ” an d s ta ti ng : “ W e . . . no w affi rm .”). The r es ul t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Ro pe r was to lea ve in ta cta li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e in a juv en il e h om ic id e cas e. Noton ly tha t, b utinth e co nt ex t o f reject in g a n a rg um en t t ha t t he de ath pe na lty for juv en il es sh ou ldbe ret ai ne d b ecau se of i ts de te rren t ef fect , th e Supr em e Co urt u se d re as on in g t ha t u nm is ta kabl y im pl ie s t he va li di ty of a li fe wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc e fo r a juv en il e: As fo r de te rren ce, it is un cl ear whe th er th e de ath pe na lty ha s a si gn ifi can t or ev en m eas ur ab le de te rren t effe ct on juv en il es . . . . To th e ex te nt th e juv en il e de ath pe na lt y m ig ht ha ve res idua l de te rren t effe ct , it is wort h n o t i ng th at th e pu ni sh m en t of li fe im pr is on m en t wit ho ut th e po ss ib il it y of pa ro le is it se lf a se ve re sa nc ti on , in pa rti cu la r fo r a y ou ng pe rs on . Id . at 5 71 –7 2, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 19 6. In ot he r wor ds , th e d eat h p en al ty is n otrequi red to de te r juv en il es fro m

co m m it ti ng m ur de r be cau se a li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e

41is de te rren ce en ou gh , parti cu larly for a ju ve ni le . The i m pl ic at io n o f Ro pe r, th en , is th ata se nt en ce o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le fora juv en il e co nv ic te d o f ho m ic id e is
co ns ti tu ti on al
. Nordo es th e Grah am

de ci si on di rect ly or in di rect ly, ex pl ic it ly or im pl ic it ly,
supp ort Lo gg in s’ po si ti on . The Co urt’s o pi ni onin th atcas e ex pr es sl y st at es th at th e d eci si on is li m it edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es im po se d o n ju ve ni le s fo r
no nh om ic id e o ffen se s. Grah am , 13 0 S .Ct. at20 23 (“ The in st an t ca se co nc ern s
on ly tho se juv en il e o ffen de rs sen te nc edto li fe wi th ou t p aro le so le ly for a
no nh om ic id e o ffen se .”); see als o i d. at20 30 (“ Thi s C ou rt n ow h ol ds th atfor a juv en il e o ffen de r who di d n otco m m itho m ic id e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t fo rb id s th e se nt en ce o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le .”). Infact , th e Grah am op in io n re pe at s t he qu al ifyin g t erm

“ no nh om ic id e”—

bo th as ano un an d a s an ad jecti ve m od ifyin g
no un s l ik e “ of

fen de rs ” an d “ cri m es ”—s om e 4 8 t im es . See i d. at20 17 –3 4. Th at po in te d q ua li fie r is st ru ng li ke ba rb edwire th ro ug ho utth e o pi ni on , fen ci ng in th e li m it edho ld in g a ndfen ci ng ou t an y bro ad er i nt erp ret at io n o f it . And , if t ha t wer e
no t en ou gh , th ere i s al so th is ke y pa ss ag e in th e Grah am

op in io n i n wh ic h the Co urt wh il e d is cu ss in g ju ve ni le sen te nc in g t oo k p ai ns to di st in gu is h b etween ho m ic id e an d n on ho m ic id e cri m es :

42The Co urt ha s reco gn iz ed th at de fen da nt s who do no t ki ll , in te nd to ki ll ,

orfor es ee t ha t l ife wil l b e ta ke n are cat eg or ic al ly l es s de se rv in g of th e m os t se rio us fo rm s of p u n i s hm en t th an are m ur de rers . The re is a li ne “be twee n ho m ic id e an d ot he r se rio us v i o l e n t of fen se s ag ai ns t th e in di vi du al .” Seri ou s n on ho m ic id e cri m es “ m ay be de va st at in g inth ei r ha rm . . . bu t ‘in te rm s of m or al de pr av it y an d of th e in jury to th e pe rs on an d to th e publ ic ,’
. . . th ey can no t be co m pa red to mu r de r in th ei r ‘sev eri ty an d irr ev oc ab il it y .’ ” Thi s is be cau se “[l ]if e is ov er fo r th e v i c t i m of th e m

ur de rer,” bu t fo r th e vi ct im of ev en a ve ry se rio us no nh om ic id e cri m e, “ li fe
. . . is no t ov er an d no rm al ly is no t be y on d rep ai r.” Alt ho ug h an of

fen se li ke ro bb e ry or rap e is “ a se rio us cri m e de se rv in g se rio us pu ni sh m en t,” th os e cri m es d i f f er fro m ho m ic id e cri m es in a m or al sen se . I t f o l lo ws th at , whe n co m

pa red to an adul t m

ur de rer, a juv en il e of fen de r who di d no t ki ll or in te nd to ki ll ha s a twi ce di m in is he d m or al cu lp ab il it y . The ag e o f t h e o f f en de r an d th e na tu re of th e cri m e each be ar o n t he an al y si s. Id . at 2 02 7 (e m

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Even th ou gh all th atco un ts for§ 22 54 (d )(1 ) pu rp os es is th e actua l h ol di ng of ade ci si on , th e rea so ni ng an d la ng ua ge of Gra ha m , li ke th atof R op er, d o c on tra di ctLog gi ns ’ po si ti on . A fai rm in de d ju ris t ce rta in ly cou ldco nc lu de th atne it he r of th os e d eci si on s cl earl y
es tabl is he s t ha t a c riminal who co m m it s a m ur de r whe n h e is a juv en il e can no t b e
se nt en cedto li fe wi th ou t p aro le
. B. Log gi ns att em

pt s t o e xt en d t he Ro pe r an d Graha m de ci si on s b y

arg ui ng th at th ei r na ti on al co ns en su s ra ti on al e sh ou ldbe us edin th is cas e. Thatatt em ptfai ls

43be cau se , as we h av e al ready no te d, t he Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atfor§ 22 54 (d )(1 ) pu rp os es , on ly the ho ld in gs of i ts de ci si on s m at te r. A rati on al e is no t a ho ld in g a ny m or e th an a ro adis a de st in at io n. An d e ve n i f ex trapo la ti on of
reas on in g wer e p erm it te d, i t wo ul d n othe lp Log gi ns he re. Itwou ldno t h el p h im be cau se “ ob

jecti ve in di ci a o f so ci ety ’s st an da rd s, as ex pr es se d i n l eg is la ti ve
en act m en ts an d s ta te pra ct ic e,” s ee Grah am , 13 0 S .Ct. at20 22 (qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) , do no t i nd ic at e th atth ere i s a n at io na l co ns en su s ag ai ns t s en te nc in g juv en il es to li fe wi th ou t p aro le forho m ic id e cri m es . If an yth in g, o bjec ti ve in di ci a in di cat e th atth ere i s a n at io na l co ns en su s i n fa vo r of pe rm it ti ng th e im

po si ti on of th atsen te nc e o n ju ve ni le s wh o c omm itm ur de r. Inth e Grah am

de ci si on , th e Supr em e Co urt co nduc te d asu rv ey of s ta te laws reg ard in g l ife wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc es for cri m es co m

m it te d b y juv en il es . See i d. at20 23 , 20 34 –3 5. Th e su rv ey rev eal edth at39 of 5 2 ju ris di ct io ns (co un ti ng th e Dis tri ctof C ol um

bi a an d t he fed eral go ve rn m en t) p erm it te d asen te nc e o f li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le fora no nh om ic id e cri m e co m m it te d b y a juv en il e. See i d. Th e Co urt d idno t, h owe ve r, st op th ere, re as on in g i ns te adth at“ [t]he re ar e
m eas ur es of c on se ns us ot he r th an leg is la ti on ” an d t ha t “ [a]ctu al sen te nc in g pr act ic es are an im

po rta ntpart o f th e Co urt’s i nq ui ry in to co ns en su s.” Id . at 2 02 3.

44Anditwas tho se “ actua l s en te nc in g p ract ic es ” th atth e Co urt u se d t o re ach th e

res ul t tha t i t d idin Grah am . See i d. at20 23 –2 6. The Supr em e Co urt’s fi na l t al ly of pr is on ers servi ng li fe wi th ou t p aro le
se nt en ces forno nh om ic id e cri m es th ey co m m it te d a s ju ve ni le s amoun te d t o 1 23 in m at es na ti on wid e, 77 of wh om were i n ju ston e juri sd ic ti on—Fl or id a. Id . at 20 24 . The Co urt al so fou ndth at“ on ly 11 ju ris di ct io ns na ti on wid e in factim po se li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es on juv en il e n on ho m ic id e o ffen de rs —an d m os t o f th os e d o s o q ui te rare ly—whi le 26 Sta te s, t he Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a, an d the Fed eral Gov ern m en t d o n otim po se th em

de sp it e ap pa ren t s ta tu to ry au th or iz at io n.” Id
. Tho se nu m

be rs st an d i n s ta rkco ntras t wi th th e n um be r of st at es im po si ng , an d t he nu m

be r of in m at es servi ng , li fe wi th ou t p aro le for ho m ic id e o ffen se s, whi chis whatth is cas e in vo lv es . A stu dy by th e Nat io na l Co nf

eren ce o f St at e Leg is la tu res las t year in di cat es th atat l eas t 2 ,46 5 i nm at es are s erv in g ali fe wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc e fo r ho m ic id e cri m es co m m it te d wh en th ey

were juv en il es . See Nat io na l Co nf

eren ce o f St at e Leg is la tu res , Ju ve ni le Life Wit ho utParo le 16 (Feb . 20 10 ), av ai labl e atht tp ://www.n cs l.o rg /d oc um en ts /c j/jlwo pc ha rt.p df

(la st

45vi si te d Au g. 2 3, 2 01 1) [he rei na fte r “Nati on al Co nf eren ce Su rv ey ”]. Tho se 2,4 65 6 in di vi du al s ar e in carc erat edin 41 di ffer en t s ta te s, as well as i n t he fed eral pe na l syste m . See i d. at1– 16
. As fo r th e n at io nwi de tre nd , th e Nat io na l Co nf eren ce Su rv ey

in di cat es th ata few juri sd ic ti on s h av e rep eal edlaws pe rm it ti ng li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es for ho m ic id es co m

m it te d b y juv en il es —Tex as in 20 09 , Mo nt an a in 20 07 , and Co lo rad o i n 2 00 6. Se e id . at 3 , 9, 1 4. Bu t m or e th an 40 juri sd ic ti on s h av e n ot
. 7 Andth e actua l num

be r of li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es im po se d fo r ho m ic id es co m

m it te d b y juv en il es ha s b een subs ta nt ia ll y hi gh er i n re cen t years

We rea ch the f

igur e of 2,465 by

subtractingthe 109 per sons servinga sente nce of life 6 without parole for

a nonhomicide c rime committed as a juve nile from the total number of 2,574 persons sente nced to life without parole for an off ense c ommitt ed while they wer e juveniles. National Confer ence Survey at 16. Some other studies put the total number of persons incar cer ated with this sentencesomewhat higher. See Human Rig hts W atch, State Distribution of Estimated 2,589 Juvenile Offende rs ServingJ uvenile L ife Without P arole (Oc t. 2009), available at http://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/relate d_materia l/updatedJ L WOP10.09.pdf. We arrive at the conse rvative f igur e of “ more than 40” this way : The National 7 Confere nce Surve y

repor ts that “39 states [and] t he fe dera l gove rnment” a llow a sentenc e of life without parole for

juveniles convicte d of homicide. See National Confer ence Survey at 16. That number e x cludes, howe ver, at least three jurisdictions—Maine, New Y ork, and West Virg inia— that have no one imprisoned under tha t sentence for a

homicide committed while a juvenile e ven though the laws of those jurisdictions would per mit such a sentenc e. See id. at 7, 11, 15; Me. Rev. Stat. tit . 15, § 3101(4) & tit. 17-A, § 1251; N.Y. Penal L aw §§ 10.00( 18), 70.00(5) , & 70.05; W. Va. Code. Ann. §§ 49-5-10, 61- 2-2, & 62-3-15. And the Supreme Court in Gra ham listed Maine as a llowing a sentenc e of life without parole for a juvenile c onvicted of homicide , and Ne w York a

nd West Virginia a s allowingthe sentenc e eve n for a nonhomicide crime. See 130 S.Ct . at 2035.

46th an itwas i n the 19 60 s, 1 97 0s , andearl y 19 80 s. See Am

ne st y Int ern at io na l & Hum an Rig ht s Watch , The Re stof Th ei r Liv es : Lif e With ou t Pa ro le forCh il d Offen de rs in th e Uni te d S ta te s 3 1 fi g.3 (20 05 ), av ai labl e at ht tp ://www.h rw.or g/ si te s/ de fau lt/fi le s/ rep orts /Th e Res t o f The ir Li ve s.p df [h erei na fte r “ Am

ne st y Int ern at io na l Re po rt” ]. In the lat e 1 98 0s an d e arl y 19 90 s 8 th ere was a st ead y

in crea se inth e n um

be r of li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es im po se d fo r juv en il e cri m es , a tre ndth atpe ak edin 19 96 when 15 2 o f th em were i m po se d
na ti on wid e. See i d. Du rin g 2 00 3, t he m os t re cen t year forwhi ch th ere i s co m pl et e da ta , 54 li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es were i m po se d fo r juv en il e cri m es , an a nn ua l fig ur e ro ug hl y

th e sa m e as th os e in th e la te 19 80 s. See id . W hi le th atnu m

be r is well be lo w th atof 1 99 6, t he pe aky ear, i t i s s ig ni fic an tl y hi gh er t han t he nu m

be r of
su ch sen te nc es im

po se d a nn ua ll y

fro m 19 62 th ro ug h 1 98 1. Se e id . A tot al of o nl y 32 li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es were i m po se d dur in g t ha t en ti re twen ty-y ear
Although the statistics we have found conc erningthe number of life without parole 8 sentenc es imposed for juve nile crimes ove r the year s are not broken down be tween homicide and nonhomicide cr imes, it is s afe to assume that the vast majority of those life w ithout parole sentenc es imposed for juve nile crimes a re imposed f

or homicides. That is evident from the fa ct that in 2010 there w ere only 123 inmates servinglife without parole f or nonhomicide c rimes they committed as juveniles, Gra ham, 130 S.Ct. at 2024, while in 2009 there we re 2,574 inmate s servinglife without parole se ntence s for e ither homicide or nonhomicide crimes c ommitt ed as juveniles, see N ational Confer ence Survey at 16, indicatingthat in that two-year period somewher e in the ra

ng e of 95 pe rce nt of the life without par ole sentenc es that we re be ing se rved by juveniles wer e for

homicides.

47pe rio d—no ne in si x o f th os e y ears , on ly one in each of s ev en y ears , andne ve r

m or e th an si x ay ear. Se e id . By co nt ras t, i n t he ten -y ear p eri odof 1 99 4 t hr ou gh 20 03 th ere wer e a t ot al of 1 ,08 1 s uc h s en te nc es , an a ve rag e o f 10 8 p er y ear. Se e id
. Insu m , th e av ai labl e d at a in di cat es th atwhi le a few jur is di ct io ns ha ve ch an ge d t he ir l aws to eli m in at e a s en te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le forho m ic id e cri m es co m

m it te d b y juv en il es , th e v as t m ajor it y of t he m ha ve no t. Su ch
se nt en ces are s ti ll pe rm it te d i n m or e th an 40 juri sd ic ti on s. Mo reo ve r, th e n um be r of su ch sen te nc es th atha ve be en im po se d i n t he m os t re cen t t en -y ear p eri odfor whi chda tais av ai labl e is far g reat er t ha n t he nu m be r im po se d i n t he twen ty-y ear pe rio d b efo re t he n. Th e lo ng -te rm na ti on al tre ndis no t awa y fro m li fe wi th ou t pa ro le sen te nc es forho m ic id es co m m it te d b y juv en il es bu t t owa rdth em . Thi s s itua ti on is si gn ifi can tl y di ffer en t fr om

th e o ne th atth e Supr em e Co urt
co ns id eredwhen itde ci de d i n Gra ha m th atli fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es co ul d n ot be im po se d fo r no nh om ic id e cri m es co m m it te d b y juv en il es . Even if ana ti on wid e tre ndor ana ti on al co ns en su s wer e en ou gh for§ 2 25 4( d) (1 ) pu rp os es —an d t he y
are n ot—t he re i s n o s uc h t ren d a way fro m or c on se ns us ag ai ns t l ife wit ho utpa ro le
as pu ni sh m en t fo r juv en il es who co m m itm ur de r.

48C.

Log gi ns als o a rg ue s t ha t the re i s an “ in te rn at io na l co ns en su s” ag ai ns t
se nt en ci ng juv en il es to li fe wi th ou t p aro le an d fo r th atreas on itis
un co ns ti tu ti on al . In h is word s, “ [t]he op in io n o f th e wor ldco m m un it y is
. . . cl earl y un it edag ai ns t t he pra ct ic e o f se nt en ci ng ad ol es cen ts to li fe i n p ris on wit ho utth e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le .” Bri ef o f App el la ntat 2 6. Th atm ay well be tru e, bu t we h av e n oty ettu rn edco ns ti tu ti on al in te rp ret at io n o ve r to ot he r
co un tri es or t he ir p eo pl e. Mo re t o t he po in t, n o d eci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt cl earl y est ab li sh es th atif o th er co un tri es do no t i m po se a type o f no n- cap it al
se nt en ce fo r a g iv en cri m e an d c at eg ory of c riminal , itis un co ns ti tu ti on al to do so in th is co un try. An i nt ern at io na l co ns en su s ag ai ns t a g iv en sen te nc e fo r a ty pe of cri m e an d c at eg ory

of c riminal m ay

pro vi de fod de r to feedlaw re vi ew art ic le s, sym po si a, an d s oc ia l s ci en ce re se arch , anditm ay serve as am ak e-wei gh t arg um en t fo r a res ul t arriv edat t hr ou gh ot he r rea so ni ng . Butitcan no t b e d eci si ve in co ns ti tu ti on al an al y si s. See Grah am , 13 0 S .Ct. at20 33 (ob se rv in g t ha t ev en th ou gh a co urt ca n l oo k t o i nt ern at io na l l aw to supp ort an in de pe nd en t co nc lu si on th ata pu ni sh m en t i s crue l an d u nu su al , “ [t]he jud gm en ts of o th er n at io ns an d t he in te rn at io na l co m

m un ity are n otdi sp os it iv e as to th e m ean in g o f th e Eig ht h

49Am en dm en t” ). All th e in te rn at io na l co ns en su s i n t he worl d c an no t es tabl is h t ha t a

st at e co urt ju dg m en t uph ol di ng a se nt en ce was “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edan
un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). D. Log gi ns di rect s u s t o t wo treat ie s d eal in g wi th th e tr eat m en t o f juv en il e cri m in al s. To th e ex te ntth athi s p oi ntis th atth os e tr eat ie s ev id en ce t ha t t he in te rn at io na l co m

m un ity (to ris k a n o xym or on ) is op po se d t o s en te nc in g ju ve ni le
m ur de rers to li fe i m

pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le , th atpo in t i s s ub su m edin th e in te rn at io na l co ns en su s ar gu m en t, wh ic h we h av e jus t re jecte d. To th e ex te nt , ho wev er, tha t Lo gg in s i s ar gu in g t ha t t ho se two tre at ie s b in d t hi s co un try to
ou tl aw li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc es forjuv en il e m ur de rers , he i s wro ng . The fir sttre aty Log gi ns rel ie s o n i s the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on on th e Ri gh ts of t he Ch il d, wh ic h p ro vi de s i n Art ic le 37 th at : No ch il d sh al l be subjec te d to to rtu re o r othe r cru el , in hu m an an d de gr ad in g tre atm en t or pu ni sh m en t. Neithe r cap it al pu ni sh m en t no r li fe im pr is on m en t wit ho ut po ss ib il i t y of rel eas e sh al l be im po se d fo r of fen ces co m

m it te d b y pe rs on s b el ow ei gh te en y ears of a ge . Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on on th e Ri gh ts of t he Ch il d, art. 3 7( a), o pe ne d fo r si gn atur e Nov . 20 , 19 89 , 15 77 U.N.T. S. 3, 2 8 I.L.M. 1 44 8. Th attre aty , ho wev er,

50do es no t re st ric t an y st at e o r th e fed eral go ve rn m en t b ecau se th e Uni te d S ta te s h as
no t ra ti fie d i t. See Grah am , 13 0 S .Ct. at20 34
. The sec on d t reat y

th atLog gi ns rel ie s o n i s t he Int ern at io na l Co ve na nton Ci vi l an d P ol it ic al Rig ht s (I CCPR ). The Un it edSta te s h as rat ifi edth attre aty , bu t
on ly w it h e xp res s re se rv at io ns as t o t he on ly two s ect io ns th atev en arg uabl y co ul d ha ve supp orte d Lo gg in s’ po si ti on . Arti cl e 1 0 p ro vi de s: 1. All pe rs on s d e p riv ed of th ei r li be rty s ha ll be tre at ed wit h hu m an it y an d wi th res pe ctforth e in he ren t d ig ni ty of th e h um an pe rs on . ** * 2.(b ) Accu se d juv en il e pe rs on s sh al l be se pa r a t e d fro m adul ts an d br ou gh t as sp eed il y

as p os si bl e fo r ad

jud ic at io n. 3. Th e p e ni te nt ia ry syste m sh al l co m pr is e tre at m en t of pr is on ers th e es se nt ia l ai m of whi ch sh al l be th ei r refo rm at i o n an d so ci al reh ab il it at io n. Ju ve ni le of fen de rs sh al l be se gr eg at ed fro m adul ts an d be acco rd edtre atm en t ap pr op ria te to th ei r ag e an d l eg al st atus . ICCP R, art . 10 , ado pt edDec. 16 , 19 66 , 99 9 U.N.T.S. 17 1 (e nt eredin to for ce M ar. 23 , 19 76 an d ra ti fie d b y

th e Uni te d S ta te s J un e 8 , 19 92 ). AndArti cl e 1 4, wh ic h ad dr es se s cr im in al pro cedur es , pro vi de s: 4. In th e cas e of ju v e n i l e pe rs on s, th e pr oc edur e sh al l be su ch as wil l ta ke acco un t of th ei r a g e an d th e de si rab il ity of pr om ot in g th ei r reh ab il it at io n.

51Id . at art. 1 4.

Refe rri ng to Arti cl e 1 4 i n p art ic ul ar, Log gi ns arg ue s: “ The Uni te d S ta te s’ pr act ic e o f se nt en ci ng juv en il e o ffen de rs to sen te nc es of l ife wit ho utth e po ss ib il it y

of p aro le is in di rectco nf li ctwit h Art ic le 14 (4 ) of

th e ICC PR b ecau se it reject s en ti rel y

th e cap aci ty of an ad ol es cen t fo r reh ab il it at io n.” Bri ef o f App el la ntat 2 6. Th atin te rp ret at io n i s que st io nabl e, ho wev er, b ecau se Arti cl e 14 (4 ) pr ov id es th ata juv en il e’s ag e an d t he de si rab il it y of r eh ab il it at io n m

us t b e ta ke n i nt o a cco un t, n otth atth os e two fact or s o ug htto be co nt ro ll in g i n e ve ry cas e
an d n otth atth ey

can no t b e o ut weig he d b y th e cri m e in anen ti re ca te go ry of c as es , su ch as m ur de r cas es . Mor e im

po rta nt ly, ev en if we a ccep t Lo gg in s’ in te rp ret at io n, t he Uni te d S ta te s’ res erv at io ns to th e tr eat y ex pr es sl y

ad dr es s t he
ve ry pro vi si on s t ha t Lo gg in s at te m pt s t o re ly on. Sp eci fic al ly, pa rag rap h 5 of t he Uni te d S ta te s’ res erv at io ns ex pl ai ns : Tha t th e po li cy an d pr ac t i c e o f th e Uni te d St at es are ge ne ral ly in co m pl ia nc e wit h an d supp orti ve of th e Co ve nant ’s pr ov is io ns reg ard in g th e tre at m en t of juv en il es in th e cri m in al jus ti ce syste m . Nev ert he le ss , th e Uni te d St at es res erv es th e rig ht , in ex cep ti on al c i rcu m st an ces , to tre at juv en il es as ad

ult s, no twi th st an di ng pa rag rap hs 2( b) an d 3 of art ic le 10 an d p arag rap h 4 of a rti cl e 1 4.

52U.S. Res erv at io ns , Decla rat io ns an d Un de rs ta nd in gs , ICCPR , 13 8 C on g. Re c.

80 71 (19 92 ). A m

ur de r, es pe ci al ly one as v ic io us as t he on e in th is cas e, is an
ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ce jus ti fy in g t reat m en t o f th e juv en il e as anadul t. Andm os t i m

po rta nt ly, § 2 25 4( d) (1 ) do es no t i nc lu de wit hi n i ts foc us in te rn at io na l t reat ie s. Itfoc us es ex cl us iv el y on th e h ol di ng s o f Supr em e Co urt de ci si on s, an d the re i s n o S up rem e Co urt d eci si on ho ld in g t ha t ju ve ni le m ur de rers
can no t b e se nt en cedto li fe wi th ou t p aro le be cau se of a ny treat y or f oran y ot he r
reas on . V. Log gi ns als o c on te nd s t ha t b y ch arg in g h im

un de r it s capi ta l p un is hm en t st atut e th e St at e “ im

pe rm is si bl y

ex pr es se d i ts in te ntto see k t he de ath p en al ty ag ai ns t h im

an d p rev en te d [h im ] fro m ex erci si ng hi s Ei gh th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o pr es en t m ean in gf

ul , mit ig at in g e vi de nc e o f hi s yout hf ul ne ss to a se nt en ci ng jury. ” Bri ef o f App el la ntat 3 5. An d h e co nt en ds th atby aut om at ic al ly resen te nc in g h im to li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le th e St at e “ vi ol at ed[hi s] Eig ht h Am en dm en t
an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en t Du e Pro ces s ri gh ts be cau se he was e nt it le d t o p res en t
m it ig at in g e vi de nc e ata se nt en ci ng he ari ng be fo re re se nt en ci ng .” Id . at 3 9.

53Bu t wh ere t he law re qu ire s a m an da to ry sen te nc e, itwou ldbe po in tl es s t o al lo w th e p res en ta ti on of m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce t o the sen te nc in g
co urt, an d t he Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t re qu ire po in tl es s p ro cedur es or p ro ceed in gs . The Alab am a co urts ha ve he ldth atwhen a de ath s en te nc e is in va li da te d u nd er t he Ro pe r de ci si on , Alab am a la w requi res th atth e d efen dantbe res en te nc edto li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le . See, e.g ., Adam s v . Sta te , 95 5 S o. 2 d 1 10 7, 11 08 –0 9 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 05 ); Du nc an v. St at e, 92 5 S o. 2 d 2 45 , 25 2 (Al a. Cri m . App . 20 05 ). AndAlab am a la w is whatth e Alaba m a co urts ho ldth atitis
. See Ken ne dy v. Lou is iana , 55 4 U.S. 4 07 , 42 5, 1 28 S.Ct . 26 41 , 26 52 (20 08 ); Brad sh aw v. Ri ch ey , 54 6 U.S. 7 4, 7 6, 1 26 S.Ct . 60 2, 6 04 (20 05 ); B ol en de r v. Si ng le ta ry , 16 F.3d15 47 , 15 71 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). So , Alab am a la w di d re qu ire th e im po si ti on of am an da to ry

li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e aft er Lo gg in s’ dea th
se nt en ce was setasi de , as t he Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s h el d i n Log gi ns ’ own cas e. Log gi ns v. St at e, No. CR -0 4- 15 67 (Ala . Cri m . App . Apr. 2 1, 20 06 ) (u np ub li sh edm em or an du m op in io n) ; Lo gg in s v . Sta te , No. CR- 04 -1 56 7 (Ala . Cri m . App . Dec. 8, 2 00 5) (or de r rem an di ng to tri al co urt fo r res en te nc in g)
. As re qu ire d b y

Alab am a la w, at h is res en te nc in g Lo gg in s was m an da to ril y
se nt en cedto li fe wi th ou t p aro le th e sa m e as if i t h adbe en th e m ax im um an d o nl y

54se nt en ce p res cri be d fo r hi m an d h is cri m e fro m

th e b eg in ni ng . The i ss ue , th en , is whe th er i t i s u nc on st itut io na l t o s en te nc e a d efen da ntwho co m m it te d am

ur de r whi le he was ajuv en il e to a m an da to ry sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le . Log gi ns cl ai m s t ha t i t i s, b uthe ha s n otcit eda si ng le de ci si on of a ny fede ral co urt tha t
ev en co m es clo se to ho ld in g t ha t. Log gi ns ’ arg um en t t ha t d efen da nt s m us t b e 9 al lo wedto pre se ntm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces in op po si ti on to a se nt en ce l es s t ha n L og g ins quotes one sentenc e fr om the Gra ham opinion that at first blush appea rs to 9 support his positi on. In response to the State of F lorida’s a rgument in Graha

m that its st ate proce dural law s took juvenile status into account in sever al way s, the Supreme Court re marke d that such ef

forts ar e “sa lutary” and sa id that “[a]n offender ’s ag e is rele vant to the Eighth Amendment, and c riminal proce dure la ws that fail to take de fenda nts’ youthfulness into acc ount at all would be f

lawed.” Gra

ham, 130 S.Ct. at 2031. That was not, howeve r, a holdingthat mandatory

life without parole se ntence s for juvenile murde rer s are unconstitutional and, as we have e x plained alr eady , only actua l holdings of the Supre me Court can c lear ly establish the law for § 2254( d)(1) purposes. Not only that, but the context in which the quoted statement appe ars in Gr aham shows that the Court was talkingabout a state ’s entire criminal proc ess, not about sentenc ing f or a particula r cr ime. See id. at 2030–31 (listing a s way s in which Florida law took youthfulness into acc ount the discretion it g ave pr osecutors a bout whether

to char g e juveniles a s adults for ce rtain non-ser ious felonies and its prohibition ag ainst char g ing non- rec idivistjuveniles as adults in misdemeanor c ases) . Be sides, Alabama law, which is a

pplied in compliance w ith the Roper decision, does take a def

endant’ s youthfulness into acc ount when sente ncingin murder case s—only

juveniles are exempt from death sente nces f or the c ommissi on of ca

pital murders. L og g ins also cites State v. Morg an, 626 S.E.2d 888 (S.C. 2006), a ca se in which the South C arolina Supre me Court deter mined that a def

endant whosecapital se ntence was va cate d as a r esult of Roper should be g iven a f ull sentence hearing w ith the opportunity to present evidenc e and a

rgument that he wa s entitled to a sentenc e other than life imprisonment without the possibilit y

of par ole. I d. at 889. That de cision, howeve r, wa s based on a n interpre tation of a South C arolina statute, not on f eder al law. I d. Of c ourse, that South Carolina statute, a nd the decision interpr etingit, do not apply to this case.

55de ath re li es on Ro pe r an d Gra ha m , bu t n ei th er d eci si on he ldth ata m an da to ry

se nt en ce o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le co ul d n otbe im po se d o n ade fen da nt fo r co m m it ti ng a m

ur de r whi le he was ajuv en il e. And , as we h av e al read y
ex pl ai ne d, Ro pe r actua ll y affi rm eda st at e ap pe ll at e co urt ju dg m en t t ha t h ad reduc edth e d efen da nt ’s dea th sen te nc e to li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le at t he ap pe ll at e le ve l wi th ou t o rd eri ng a ne w sen te nc e h eari ng , an a ct io n t ha t d ep riv ed th e d efen da ntof a ny op po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce o f m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . Tha t i s ex act ly wha t h ap pe ne d i n t hi s ca se . The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t a s en te nc e th atco ul d
co ns ti tu ti on al ly be im

po se d b y a tr ia l co urt i n t he ex erci se of i ts di sc ret io n i s n o le ss co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se itis m an da to ril y im po se d u nd er t he requi rem en ts of a st atut e. InHarm el in v. Mi ch ig an , 50 1 U.S. 9 57 , 11 1 S .Ct. 2 68 0 (1 99 1) , th e Co urt up he lda m an da to ry

sen te nc e o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le fora de fen da ntwit h n o p rio r
co nv ic ti on s wh o was co nv ic te d o f se ll in g l es s t ha n aki lo gr am of c oc ai ne . Id. at 96 1, 9 94 , 99 6, 1 11 S.Ct . at 2 68 4, 2 70 1– 02 . In d oi ng so , th e Co urt re jecte d the cl ai m th atitwas u nc on st itut io na l “ to im po se a m an da to ry

sen te nc e o f su ch
se ve rit y , witho utan y

co ns id erat io n o f so -cal le d m it ig at in g fa ct or s.” Id . at 9 94 , 11 1 S .Ct. at27 01 . The Co urt n ot edth atth e p et it io ne r’s co nt en ti onwou ldha ve

56requi redth e St at e “ to crea te a se nt en ci ng sch em e whe reb y li fe i n p ris on wit ho ut pa ro le is si m

pl y th e m os t s ev ere o f a ran ge of a va il ab le pe na lt ie s t ha t t he sen te nc er
m ay im po se aft er h eari ng ev id en ce i n m it ig at io n a ndag gr av at io n.” Id. at99 4, 1 11 S.Ct . at 2 70 1. In reject in g t ha t cl ai m , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d: As ou r earl ie r di sc us si on sh ou ld m ak e cl ear, t h i s c l a im ha s no supp ort in th e te xt an d hi st ory of th e Ei g h t h Am en dm en t. Sev ere, m an da to ry pe na lt ie s m ay be cru el , bu t th ey are no t u n u s u a l in th e co ns ti tu ti on al se ns e, ha vi ng be en em

pl oyed in vario us fo rm s th ro ug ho ut ou r Nati on ’s hi st ory . A s no te d earl ie r, m an da to ry de ath se nt en ces ab ou nd ed in ou r fir st Pen al Co de
. The y were al so co m m on i n th e se ve ral St at es —b ot h at th e ti m e of th e fo un di ng an d th ro ug ho ut th e 19 th cen tu ry . The re can be no se rio us co nt en ti on , t h e n , th at a se nt en ce whi ch is no t ot he rwis e cru el an d u nu su al be co m es so si m pl y be cau se itis “ m an da to ry .” Id . at 9 94 –9 5, 1 11 S.Ct . at 2 70 1 (c it at io ns om it te d) . The Co urt d idackno wled ge th atth e d efen dant ’s cla im fou nd“ supp ort i n [i ts ] de ath p en al ty j ur is prud en ce,” b ut itrefu se d “ to ex te ndth is so -cal le d i nd iv idua li zedcap it al -s en te nc in g d oc tri ne [] to
an in di vi du al iz edm an da to ry li fe i n p ris on wit ho utpa ro le sen te nc in g d oc tri ne .” Id
. at99 5, 1 11 S.Ct . at 2 70 1– 02 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . As th is Co urt ha s re cen tl y

no te d, “ th e Harm el in Co urt s co ffedat t he id ea t ha t d ep riv in g t he
se nt en cer o f di sc ret io n t o c on si de r m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces co ul d m ak e an y di ffer en ce i n wh ethe r a n on -cap it al sen te nc e was co ns ti tu ti on al ly di sp ro po rti on at e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Farl ey , 60 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

57Giv en th e ab se nc e o f an y supp ort fo r Log gi ns ’ cl ai m s ab ou t t he m an da to ry
na tu re o f th e li fe wi th ou t p aro le sen te nc e im po se d o n h im

an d g iv en th e p res en ce of Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s s tro ng ly ind ic at in g tha t h is cla im s h av e n o m eri t, h e ha s fa il edto carry

hi s b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atno fai rm in de d ju ris t co ul d a gr ee wit h t he Alab am a co urts ’ reject io n o f th os e cl ai m s. He h as ag ai n fa il edto sh ow th atth e st at e co urt d eci si on was “ co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y

est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Fi na ll y , Log gi ns arg ue s t ha t: “ Bec au se a st at e can no t s eekth e d eat h p en al ty ag ai ns t a ju ve ni le , a juv en il e can no t b e ch arg edwit h acap it al off en se in Alab am a,
an d [h is ] co nv ic ti on un de r th atst atut e is in vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.” Bri ef o f App el la ntat 3 6. Th atarg um en t i s b as edon a m is ch arac te riz at io n o f

“ cap it al off

en se ” und er Al ab am a la w, anditis als o wro ng forot he r rea so ns . Und er t he Alab am a st atut e cap it al off en se s i nc lu de va rio us types of ag gr av at edm

ur de r, in cl ud in g “ Mu rd er . . . du rin g aki dn ap pi ng in th e fi rs t d eg ree
oranatt em

ptth ereo f,” Ala . Cod e § 13 A-5 -4 0( a)(1 ), whi ch is th e cap it al off en se Log gi ns was c on vi ct edof c omm it ti ng . A capi ta l o ffen se , su ch as t he on e Log gi ns
co m m it te d, i s n otanoff

en se forwhi ch th e d efen da ntwil l b e se nt en cedto de ath. It

58is anoff

en se forwhi ch th e d efen da ntwil l b e se nt en cedeit he r to de ath o r to li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le de pe nd in g o n t he cir cu m st an ces . See i d. § 13 A-5
- 39 ; s ee al so id . § 1 3A- 5- 45 . Alab am a la w, as i nt erp ret edan d app li edby the Alab am a co urts , pro vi de s t ha t i n a ny case in whi ch th e d efen da ntwas s en te nc edto de ath a ndth atsen te nc e is lat er d et erm in edto be un co ns ti tu ti on al , a se nt en ce o f li fe wi th ou t p aro le is to be im po se d. Se e id . § 1 3A- 5- 45 (a) (“ Upo n c on vi ct io n o f a de fen da ntfora cap it al off en se , th e tr ia l co urt s ha ll co nduc t a s ep arat e se nt en ce he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er t he de fen da ntsh al l b e se nt en cedto li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le or t o d eat h.” ); Wim be rly v. Sta te , 93 1 S o. 2 d 6 0, 6 3 (Ala . Cri m . App . 20 05 ) (ap pl y in g R op er an d h ol di ng : “ Bec au se [th e d efen da nt ]
was un de r th e ag e o f 18 when he co m m it te d t he [cap it al ] m

ur de rs , hi s s en te nc e o f de ath i s due to be setasi de . This cas e m us t b e rem an de d fo r th e [tria l co urt] to set
as id e [t he de fen dant ’s] de ath s en te nc e an d t o s en te nc e h im to th e o nl y

ot he r
av ai labl e se nt en ce— li fe i n t he pe ni te nt ia ry witho utth e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le .”); Dun can , 92 5 S o. 2 d a t 2 52 (ho ld in g t ha t u nd er Ro pe r itwas u nc on st itut io na l t o im po se de ath s en te nc e o n t he de fen da nt , who was s ev en te en y ears ol d wh en he
co m m it te d t he cap it al off

en se s o f ki dn ap pi ng -m

ur de r an d ro bb ery-m

ur de r, an d

“ rem an d[ in g] th is cas e to th e ci rcu itco urt fo r th atco urt t o s etasi de th e

59[d efen da nt ’s] sen te nc e o f de ath a ndto res en te nc e h im to im pr is on m en t fo r li fe wit ho utth e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le ”). So , whi le a juv en il e who co m m it s a m ur de r can no t b e ex ecu te d, an d c an no lo ng er b e se nt en cedto de ath, i t i s n otaccu rat e to ass ert , as Lo gg in s d oe s, t ha t h e
can no t b e ch arg edwit h a“ cap it al off en se .” He canbe ch arg edwit h acap it al of fen se , as Lo gg in s was , andth e p en al ty tha t Al ab am a la w pro vi de s fo r juv en il es who co m m ita cap it al off

en se is li fe wi th ou t p aro le , andth atis th e se nt en ce Log gi ns rece iv edaft er Ro pe r, an d i t i s t he sen te nc e h e is no w servi ng . The factth atLog gi ns was s en te nc edto de ath a fte r be in g c on vi ct edof a cap it al off

en se be fo re t he Ro pe r de ci si on was i ss ue d s im pl y refl ect s t he factth at th e St at e o f Alaba m a an d i ts co urts , li ke m os t s ta te s an d c ou rts , lac ke d t he cl ai rv oyance to kn ow t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt wo ul d d o a n abo ut -fac e an d ru le ou t de ath s en te nc es forsev en te en -y ear- ol d m ur de rers , aft er i t h adpre vi ou sl y rul ed th em in . See St an fo rdv. Ken tu cky , 49 2 U.S. 3 61 , 38 0, 1 09 S.Ct . 29 69 , 29 80 (1 98 9) ov erru le d b y

Ro pe r, 54 2 U.S. 5 51 , 12 5 S .Ct. 1 18 3. To th e ex te ntth at Log gi ns ’ arg um en t i nc lu de s the pro po si ti on th ata st at e’s fai lu re t o a nt ic ip at e th e Ro pe r de ci si on so m eh ow d is en ti tl es itfro m im po si ng th e n ex t m os t s ev ere p en al ty it s l aw al lo ws, t he re i s n ot hi ng in law o r lo gi c to supp ort t ha t p ro po si ti on . If, as

60we are h ol di ng , Rop er d oe s n otpre ve nta st at e fro m im po si ng a li fe wi th ou t p aro le
se nt en ce o n ade fen da ntwho co m m it te d m ur de r atag e se ve nt een , itdo es no t pr ev en t a s ta te fro m

va cat in g ade ath s en te nc e to co m pl y wit h t he Ro pe r de ci si on
an d re se nt en ci ng th e d efen dantto li fe wi th ou t p aro le . As we h av e p oi nt edou t, th atis ex act ly wha t t he st at e ap pe ll at e co urt, wh os e jud gm en t was affi rm edin Ro pe r it se lf, d id . And , on ce ag ai n i n t erm s o f th e ap pl ic ab le leg al st an da rd , no Supr em e Co urt d eci si on cle arl y est ab li sh es th atth e Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s
co ul d n otord er t he tri al co urt t o i m po se on Log gi ns a m an da to ry sen te nc e o f li fe im pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le aft er i t h adva cat edhi s d eat h s en te nc e in ord er t o
co m pl y wit h t he Ro pe r de ci si on . AFFIRMED.

61