Court Opinion

ID: 9869947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:44:11.794715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:42.735194
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
CONCURRING IN PART/DISSENTING PART.
¶ 11 agree that Appellant’s sentence of life without parole must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing, however, I must dissent to the manner in which the Court arrives at this decision.
¶ 2 The Opinion wrongly expands upon the requirements of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). I agree that the United States Supreme Court now requires an individualized sentencing hearing before an offender who committed his or her offense under the age of eighteen years of age may be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Id., 136 S.Ct. at 735, citing Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2460, 2471, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). However, the Supreme Court explained in Montgomery that its opinion in “Miller did not impose a formal factfinding requirement” as to whether the offender’s “crimes reflect transient immaturity” or “irreparable corruption.” Id. Instead, the Supreme Court carefully limited the scope of its opinion “to avoid intruding more than necessary upon the States’ sovereign *964administration of their criminal justice systems.” Id.
¶ 3 This is a matter to be addressed by the Oklahoma Legislature, however, the Legislature has not had an opportunity to take it up. See Murphy v. State, 2002 OK CR 32, ¶ 27 n. 14, 54 P.3d 556, 566-67 n. 14 (recognizing that Governor Frank Keating vetoed House Bill setting forth mental retardation standards before this Court adopted standards and instructions), overruled by Blonner v. State, 2006 OK CR 1, 127 P.3d 1135, but the Oklahoma Legislature, after being given notice, codified Murphy at 21 0,S.Supp.2006, § 701.10b. Until the Legislature has the opportunity to take this matter up, this Court should review the totality of the evidence presented to determine whether the sentencer had sufficient evidence to consider the offender’s “youth and its attendant characteristics, along with the nature of the crime.”12 See Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 734, 735; Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2460, 2471; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204.
¶ 4 I further disagree with the limitations which the Opinion places on the sentencing judge. The Court is correct when it observes the right to have a jury help determine sentence is guaranteed by 22 O.S.2011, § 926.1. Fite v. State, 1993 OK CR 58, ¶ 2, 873 P.2d 293, 297-98 (Lumpkin, Presiding Judge, Specially Concurring). However, the requirement within § 926.1 that “the court shall render a judgment according to [the jury’s] verdict” is subject to the clause which immediately follows it, to wit: “except as hereinafter provided.” This language clearly indicates that other sections within Title 22 can modify the trial court’s duty to render judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Sections 982, 982a, 991a, and 991c of Title 22 O.S.2011, are all examples where the Legislature has authorized the trial court to act notwithstanding the jury’s recommendation as to sentence. As these statutes show, the jury’s recommendation is not carved in stone, but is a recommendation which .the trial judge should follow unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise. Fite, 1993 OK CR 58, ¶ 2, 873 P.2d at 297-98 (Lumpkin, Presiding Judge, Specially Concurring).
¶ 5 The majority’s reliance upon Luker v. State, 1976 OK CR 135, 552 P.2d 715, and Reddell v. State, 1975 OK CR 229, 543 P.2d 574, is misplaced. The reasoning in these two cases from the mid 1970’s has not kept up with the numerous amendments to Title 22. By the plain language of § 982(D), the trial court receives the presentenee report at a hearing “in mitigation or aggravation of punishment.” Pursuant to Section 982a(A)(l), any time within twenty-four months after imposition of the original sentence, the trial court is permitted to modify the sentence by directing that another sentence be imposed. Under the auspices of § 991a(A)(l), the trial court is authorized to suspend the execution of the sentence in whole or in part. The trial court may even defer entering a judgment of guilt for up to ten (10) years upon the specific conditions of probation as outlined in § 991(c). Thus, the trial judge has the power to deviate from the jury’s recommendation when extenuating circumstances dictate.
¶ 6 Reviewing the totality of the circumstances in the present case, I find that neither the sentencing judge nor the jury had a sufficient opportunity to consider the offender’s youth and attendant characteristics relating to youth along with the nature of the crime. Therefore, the case should be remanded for resentencing.

. There is a "wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to [youth]”, which a juvenile offender may choose to present in an individualized sentencing proceeding. See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2467, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).