Opinion ID: 2798655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Beach

Text: ¶82 The State argues that we should not grant Beach’s petition for habeas corpus, even if Miller is applied retroactively. It contends that Beach’s sentence was not unconstitutional under the rule of Miller because Miller only applies to sentences of life without parole that were mandatorily imposed by statute. The State concludes that Beach’s sentence is not unconstitutional because it was neither mandatorily imposed nor a sentence of life without parole. Additionally, it argues, the sentencing court did, in fact, consider Beach’s age when sentencing him. For this reason, it again concludes that Beach’s sentence was not unconstitutional under the rule of Miller. I disagree. 46 ¶83 While applied in that case to a mandatory sentence of life without parole, the court in Miller was concerned with the “irrevocable judgment about [an offender’s] value and place in society” that kind of sentence makes. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 74, 130 S. Ct. at 2030) (alteration in original). Life without parole, it said, “forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal,” deciding that the offender is “incorrigible.” Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 73-74, 130 S. Ct. at 2029-30). Because “incorrigibility is inconsistent with youth” and juveniles are thus often more reformable than adults, the court concluded that the sentence would not always be penologically justified and therefore could not be mandatorily imposed. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465, 2468-69. It stated that the sentence might still be constitutionally imposed on juveniles, but only after individualized consideration of that juvenile’s characteristics. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. ¶84 Here, the court’s decision applies with the same force to Beach’s sentence. Because he was sentenced on May 11, 1984, to 100 years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the earliest Beach could have been released was when he was 72 years old. This means that his sentence exceeded his life expectancy at the time of sentencing, and that it is near or in excess of his life expectancy now. See IIA National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States § 6, 577 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1984) (reporting the life expectancy at birth for a white male born in 1961 as 67.55 years, and reporting the expectation of life at twenty years old for a white male born in 1961 as 50.25 years); National Center for 47 Health Statistics, United States Life Tables, 2010, National Vital Statistics Reports, Nov. 6, 2014, at 3 (reporting that in 2010 the expectation of life for a 40 year old white male was 38.5 years). Thus, the sentence provided Beach with no meaningful opportunity for release and no “meaningful opportunity” to demonstrate the “maturity and rehabilitation” sufficient to reenter society. Graham, 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S. Ct. at 2011. As in Miller, the sentence imposed upon Beach forswears the rehabilitative ideal based upon the implicit decision that Beach, even as a juvenile, was incorrigible. As in Miller, the sentence deprived him of the most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465; see Graham, 560 U.S. at 69-70, 130 S. Ct. at 2027. Thus, for the purposes of Miller, Beach’s sentence is the functional equivalent of life without parole. Cf. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 79, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1176-77 (2003) (Souter, J., dissenting) (“because Andrade was 37 years old when sentenced, the substantial 50-year period amounts to life without parole”); Graham, 560 U.S. at 70-71, 130 S. Ct. at 2028 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 2702 (1991) (“In some cases . . . there will be negligible difference between life without parole and other sentences of imprisonment – for example, . . . a lengthy term sentence without eligibility for parole, given to a 65-year-old man.”); Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66, 83, 107 S. Ct. 2716, 2726 (1987) (“[T]here is no basis for distinguishing, for the purposes of deterrence, between an inmate serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole and a person serving several sentences of a number of years, the total of which exceeds his normal life expectancy.”). According to Miller, then, Beach’s sentence could 48 only be constitutionally imposed if the sentencing court considered whether the sentence was penologically justified in light of Beach’s juvenility. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. ¶85 It is of little importance that Beach’s chronological age was on the PSI and available to the sentencing judge. In order to constitutionally impose Beach’s sentence, it would not have been enough for the sentencing judge to be aware of Beach’s chronological age. Knowing that Beach was a juvenile, the court would still need to consider Beach’s particular circumstances and characteristics and to determine whether, in light of these characteristics, his culpability and inability to be reformed warrant the severe sentence. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. ¶86 Here, there is no indication in the record or otherwise that the District Court made these considerations. It issued a sentence that effectively decided that Beach was incorrigible without considering that as a juvenile he was more likely to be reformed. It effectively sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, and it did so without considering that as a juvenile Beach may have been more susceptible to outside pressure, less cognizant of consequences, and correspondingly less culpable and less likely to be deterred. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465-69. In doing so, it made “youth (and all that accompanies it) irrelevant to imposition of that harshest prison sentence” and created “too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. ¶87 For these reasons, Beach’s sentence does not comply with the rule announced in Miller. It is, therefore, unconstitutional. I would grant Beach’s petition for this reason and I would order that he be resentenced. 49 /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT