Summary
Justice Crichton explains that he would grant the defendant’s application, order briefing, and set the matter for oral argument concerning the constitutionality of a juvenile life-without-parole sentence. He discusses Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Louisiana legislative changes affecting juvenile sentencing, while stating that the district court properly conducted the Miller hearing and denied parole eligibility.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Louisiana Supreme Court should grant review to address the constitutionality and adequacy of a Miller hearing resulting in life imprisonment without parole eligibility for a juvenile offender.
- Whether Louisiana law, including the recently amended La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 878.1, adequately addresses juvenile offenders who previously received Miller hearings and were denied parole eligibility.
Key quotations
“I believe the present case affords the Court the opportunity to' fill this potential gap in the law and offer the district courts' badly néeded guidance under the Eighth Amendment.” (at 838)
“The district court judge conducted the hearing admirably and, I believe, correctly denied defendant parole eligibility to this “rare juvenile offender whose: crime reflects irreparable corruption.”” (at 838)
Factual background
The defendant committed the offense at age sixteen, repeatedly shooting a victim who was shielding a woman while her child was nearby. According to Justice Crichton, the defendant showed no remorse and appeared to be a hardened, unrepentant murderer, gang member, and drug trafficker. The district court conducted a Miller hearing and denied parole eligibility.
Procedural history
The district court conducted a hearing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama and imposed or maintained a sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility. The defendant sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court, which denied the application; Justice Crichton dissented from that denial and would have granted review.