Opinion ID: 2750426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriate Procedure

Text: We turn finally to the scope of the resentencing hearings that we order today. Miller requires the sentencing authority take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison. 132 S. Ct. at 2469. Consequently, Miller establishes a specific framework, articulating that the factors a sentencing court consider at a hearing must include: (1) the chronological age of the offender and the hallmark features of youth, including immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate the risks and consequence; (2) the family and home environment that surrounded the offender; (3) the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of the offender's participation in the conduct and how familial and peer pressures may have affected him; (4) the incompetencies associated with youth—for example, [the offender's] inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) or [the offender's] incapacity to assist his own attorneys; and (5) the possibility of rehabilitation. 132 S. Ct. at 2468. While we do not go so far as some commentators who suggest that the sentencing of a juvenile offender subject to a life without parole sentence should mirror the penalty phase of a capital case,9 we are mindful that the Miller Court specifically linked the individualized sentencing requirements of capital sentencing to juvenile life without parole sentences. 132 S. Ct. at 2463, 2467–68. Thus, the type of mitigating evidence permitted in death penalty sentencing hearings unquestionably has relevance to juvenile life without parole sentencing hearings, in addition to the factors illustrated above. Without question, the judge may still determine that life without parole is the appropriate sentence in some of these cases in light of other aggravating circumstances. Our General Assembly has made the decision that juvenile offenders may be sentenced to life without parole, and we honor that decision. However, Miller requires that before a life without parole sentence is imposed upon a juvenile offender, he must receive an individualized hearing where the mitigating hallmark features of youth are fully explored.10 9 See Chemerinsky, supra note 6. 10 We decline the dissent's invitation to set out a specific process for trial court judges to follow when considering whether to sentence a juvenile to life without parole. The United States Supreme Court did not establish a definite resentencing procedure and we likewise see no reason to do so. We have the utmost confidence