Q: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
concur. SHAW, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. MOORE, C.J., and MURDOCK, J., concur in the result. 1 . Some offenses are outside the Criminal Code, such as drug offenses, which are governed by the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, 20-2-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. 2 . The plain meaning of "capital" is the possibility of the death penalty. "Capital" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "[p]un-ishable by execution; involving the death penalty." Black's Law Dictionary 236 (9th ed. 2011). 3 . The Supreme Court stated that it believed "appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to the harshest penalty will be uncommon." 567 U.S. at-, 132 S.Ct. at 2455. 4 . Other jurisdictions have addressed Miller. See, e.g., Ortiz v. State, 119 So.3d 494 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2013)(<HOLDING>); People v. Banks, [No. 08CA0105, September 27,
Holding statements: (A) holding that minor defendant was not entitled to a writ of prohibition directing the trial court to dismiss his capitalmurder indictments where he argued that only statutorily authorized sentences of death and life imprisonment without parole had been declared unconstitutional but the florida courts had established a valid sentencing option under miller (B) holding that sentence was erroneous but not void where sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed for first degree murder under unconstitutional penalty statute (C) holding that because minor defendant was mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and because his case was still pending on direct appeal when miller was released the minor defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing (D) holding sentences of life without parole unique in their severity (E) recognizing that njeither graham nor miller explicitly apply to the functional equivalent of life without parole ie de facto life sentences
A:
holding that sentence was erroneous but not void where sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed for first degree murder under unconstitutional penalty statute