Source: http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/legislation/us-supreme-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:42:10+00:00

Document:
Pending: Alatriste on H.C. & Bonilla on H.C.
The California Supreme Court will hear two cases in late 2014 or early 2015 deciding how sentencing courts must act when faced with sentencing to a very long adult sentence a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.
Alatriste includes the following issues: (1) Did Senate Bill 260, which includes provisions for a parole suitability hearing after a maximum of 25 years for most juvenile offenders serving life sentences, render moot any claim that such a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution and that the petitioner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing applying the mitigating factors for such juvenile offenders set forth in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]? If not: (2) Does Miller apply retroactively on habeas corpus to a prisoner who was a juvenile at the time of the commitment offense and who is presently serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole? (3) Is a total term of imprisonment of 77 years to life (Alatriste) or 50 years to life (Bonilla) for murder committed by a 16-year-old offender the functional equivalent of life without possibility of parole by denying the offender a meaningful opportunity for release on parole? (4) If so, does the sentence violate the Eighth Amendment absent consideration of the mitigating factors for juvenile offenders set forth in Miller?” Alatriste on H.C. and Bonilla on H.C.
In 2014, the California Supreme Court held that the State statute permitting life without parole sentences for 16 & 17 year olds must be construed as discretionary, and trial courts must consider the youthfulness of juveniles.
On August 16, 2012, the California Supreme Court held that a sentence of 110 years to life was the same as life without parole. As a result, to sentence a juvenile to that sentence for a nonhomicide offense is unconstitutional under the US Supreme Court case, Graham v. Florida.
Rodrigo Caballero was 16 at the time of three attempted murders. He was convicted and his original sentence would have meant that he would have not been eligible to go before the parole board for over 100 years. People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262.
Although it is still possible for a court to sentence a juvenile to life without parole after Miller, what Miller requires is that judges consider how juveniles are different from adults. Before sentencing a youth to life without parole, the court must give a lot of weight to the “the hallmark features” of youth, the family and home environment, the circumstances of the homicide offense, and how the defendant’s youthfulness affected the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court combined two cases, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs. The legal citation for these cases is Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455.
Many organizations and individuals submitted “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to the Supreme Court in support of the youth who are sentenced to LWOP. Law enforcement, victim family members, religious groups, scientists, educators, disability rights activists, and groups like the the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Human Rights Watch, Mental Health America, National Association of Social Workers, and many others all signed on to briefs arguing that the court should find in favor of the young people in these cases. You can read these briefs here.
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not permit the imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for youth under the age of 18 in cases involving a non-homicide crime. Terrance Graham, the petitioner in the case, was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty to armed burglary with assault or battery and attempted armed-robbery. When his trial court judge later found that Graham violated his probation by committing a home invasion robbery and other related offenses, it sentenced him to life without parole.
Many organizations and individuals submitted “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to the Supreme Court in support of youth who are sentenced to LWOP. You can read these briefs here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.