Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Miller v. Alabama factors must be considered when sentencing a juvenile to a lengthy term of imprisonment that is the practical equivalent of life without parole. The Court reversed Ricky Zuber’s case, affirmed James Comer’s case, and remanded both for resentencing, including consideration of their rehabilitative efforts and the factors governing consecutive sentences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a juvenile's lengthy term-of-years sentence that is the practical equivalent of life without parole triggers the protections of Miller v. Alabama.
- Whether sentencing courts must consider the Miller youth-related factors when imposing consecutive sentences that may produce a lengthy aggregate period of parole ineligibility for a juvenile.
- Whether Comer could challenge the legality of his sentence despite a prior direct appeal and post-conviction proceeding.
- What resentencing procedures were required for Zuber and Comer.
Holdings
- Miller's requirement that sentencing judges consider youth and its attendant characteristics applies to lengthy term-of-years sentences that are the practical equivalent of life without parole, regardless of the formal label attached to the sentence.
- Before imposing consecutive sentences on a juvenile that may result in a lengthy period of parole ineligibility, the sentencing court must consider the Miller factors in addition to the Yarbough criteria and must exercise a heightened level of care.
- Comer could challenge the legality of his sentence despite his prior direct appeal and post-conviction motion because an illegal sentence may be challenged at any time.
- Both defendants were entitled to resentencing at which the courts must consider the Miller factors and any rehabilitative efforts since the original sentences.
Key quotations
“The proper focus belongs on the amount of real time a juvenile will spend in jail and not on the formal label attached to his sentence.” (3)
“The label alone cannot control; we decline to elevate form over substance.” (30)
“We believe that youth matters in each case that calls for a lengthy sentence that is the practical equivalent of life without parole.” (31)
“To be faithful to the concerns that Graham and Miller highlight, which our State Constitution embraces as well, a sentencing court must consider not only the factors in Yarbough but also the ones in Miller when it decides whether to impose consecutive sentences on a juvenile which may result in a lengthy period of parole ineligibility.” (34)
Factual background
Ricky Zuber committed two gang rapes in 1981 when he was seventeen and ultimately received an aggregate sentence of 110 years with 55 years of parole ineligibility, making him parole-ineligible until approximately age seventy-two. James Comer participated in four armed robberies in 2000 at age seventeen; an accomplice killed a victim during one robbery, and Comer received 75 years with 68 years and three months of parole ineligibility, making him parole-ineligible at approximately age eighty-five. Neither defendant's original sentencing sufficiently considered the mitigating characteristics of youth required by Miller v. Alabama.
Procedural history
Zuber was originally sentenced to an aggregate 150 years with 75 years of parole ineligibility for offenses committed at age seventeen. After remand under Yarbough, his sentence was reduced to 110 years with 55 years of parole ineligibility. His later constitutional challenge was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Division. Comer, who committed armed robberies at age seventeen and received 75 years with 68 years and three months of parole ineligibility, unsuccessfully pursued direct appeal and post-conviction relief; the trial court later granted his motion to correct an illegal sentence and ordered resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed in Zuber, affirmed in Comer, and remanded both cases for resentencing.
Remand instructions
Zuber's case was reversed and remanded; Comer's case was affirmed and remanded. On remand, both sentencing courts must conduct resentencing consistent with Miller, considering youth and its attendant characteristics, the circumstances of the offenses, rehabilitative efforts since the original sentences, the Yarbough factors, and whether counts should run consecutively. Judges must perform an individualized assessment and exercise heightened care before imposing lengthy aggregate sentences on juveniles.