45 results for 'cat:"Juvenile Law" AND cat:"Sentencing"'.
J. Murphy finds defendant's 900-month sentence for a murder conviction does not violate the Eighth Amendment even though he was a minor at the time of the crime. The trial court was only required to consider his youth at the time of the offense - which it did - and was not precluded from imposing a harsh sentence based on the brutal nature of the crime. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Murphy, Filed On: September 9, 2024, Case #: 23-3106, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Maxwell finds the trial court properly resentenced defendant to life in prison following the Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. State law allows for a court to impose a life sentence if the juvenile offender was convicted prior to the ruling in Miller. Additionally, the court properly considered all of the required sentencing factors, including defendant's age and maturity, the heinous nature of his crime and potential rehabilitation. Affirmed.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court, Judge: Maxwell, Filed On: September 5, 2024, Case #: 2023-CA-117, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Egerton orders the trial court to revisit defendant's petition to be resentenced for first degree murder, assault, second degree murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He was sentenced to ten years fixed plus an indeterminate term of 130 years to life when he was 15. The constitutional equal protection guarantee means that the statute that mandates resentencing for juveniles given life without the possibility of parole must also be applied to defendants with functionally equivalent sentences. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Egerton, Filed On: August 21, 2024, Case #: B331652, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Equal Protection
J. Baker holds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to use of defendant's youth court records in a presentence investigation report for an adult criminal mischief conviction, but the error was harmless since it did not affect the outcome of his plea agreement. Also, the trial court must inquire into his ability to pay before ordering him to pay the report fee and supervision cost. Reversed in part.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Baker, Filed On: August 20, 2024, Case #: DA 22-0414, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Plea
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Smith affirms defendant’s 77-year sentence imposed for two convictions for first degree murder arising from separate incidents when defendant was 17 years old. “Defendant’s parole eligibility after 20 years supports the conclusion that the sentences imposed at his resentencing were not excessive.” Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Smith, Filed On: August 12, 2024, Case #: 220864, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Georges determines the juvenile defendant’s adult state prison sentence is not unlawful, but the defendant has a right to appeal that sentence to the appellate division, just as an adult sentenced similarly would be able to do. The appellate division exists to examine whether sentences are too harsh or lenient and correct them if necessary.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Georges, Filed On: August 5, 2024, Case #: SJC-13496, Categories: juvenile Law, Probation, sentencing
J. Schumacher finds that the 17-year-old defendant was properly sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to robbing a store. He was not entitled to an individualized hearing to consider the factors associated with juvenile offenders because no minimum sentence was imposed. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Schumacher, Filed On: July 24, 2024, Case #: 23-0945, Categories: juvenile Law, Robbery, sentencing
J. Hellman finds the juvenile court properly ordered a youth’s continued commitment to Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) custody instead of committing him to Department of Human Services. The record contained evidence that the youth was “experiencing frequent violation ideation,” that he had exhibited volatile conduct while in OYA custody, and that he had run away from an OYA facility. Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Hellman, Filed On: July 10, 2024, Case #: A179417, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Jorgensen finds that the lower court improperly dismissed defendant's post-conviction motion seeking relief from the life sentence imposed on him for a murder he committed at age 18. Defendant was sentenced under a mandatory statutory scheme that required the sentencing judge to impose a de facto life sentence, in violation of Miller principles that require the judge have the discretion to consider defendant's youth at the time of the crime. Vacated.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Jorgensen, Filed On: July 8, 2024, Case #: 210488-B, Categories: Constitution, juvenile Law, sentencing
J. Aarons finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant based on his guilty plea to possession of a weapon for crimes committed when he was 16 years old because no abuse of discretion occurred in determining that his actions of firing his weapon during the commission of a crime weighed against granting youthful offender status. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Aarons, Filed On: June 27, 2024, Case #: 110407C, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Weapons
J. Mikva finds that the lower court improperly sentenced defendant to 60 years for murder and vehicular hijacking, crimes he committed as a juvenile, without applying the relevant mitigating factors. The court failed to consider multiple Miller factors, and only afforded defendant half a point for his rehabilitation efforts, despite the fact that two correctional officers testified on his behalf, and the former director of the Department of Corrections testified defendant had done everything he could to demonstrate rehabilitation. Defendant's sentence shall be reduced to 25 years. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Mikva, Filed On: June 21, 2024, Case #: 221172, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant based on her guilty plea to burglary since the valid appeal waiver precluded claims contending the sentence was harsh and that she should have been granted youthful offender treatment for having been a teenager at the time. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 13, 2024, Case #: 113278, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Plea
J. Feuer holds that the juvenile court properly applied precommitment custody credits to the maximum six-year term of a juvenile's confinement for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. Statute does not allow the juvenile court to apply the credits against his baseline term of confinement. Differences in outcomes between those sentenced before and after legislative changes made through the juvenile justice realignment did not violate his equal protection rights. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Feuer, Filed On: June 12, 2024, Case #: B326712, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing, Assault
[Consolidated.] J. Rose finds that the trial court properly sentenced three defendants for crimes including murder even though they had been under 21 years old at the time of their offenses because the sentences were authorized under criminal code. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Appellate Division, Judge: Rose , Filed On: May 31, 2024, Case #: A-3911-21, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing
J. Kitchens finds the trial court erroneously imposed a life sentence without parole after the jury in defendant's murder trial was unable to agree on a sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama bars such sentences for juvenile defendants; therefore, the case will be remanded to allow proper sentencing. Reversed.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court, Judge: Kitchens, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 2023-CT-1381, Categories: Constitution, juvenile Law, sentencing
J. Tabor finds that a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole in 50 years was properly imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, which he committed at age 17, as the lower court performed a thorough analysis before handing down sentence. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tabor, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 22-2079, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Pucinski finds that the lower court improperly denied defendant's pro se postconviction motion challenging his life sentence for aggravated vehicular hijacking. The law does not permit a prior conviction committed before age 21 to be used as a qualifying offense for Class X sentencing. Defendant's case is remanded for resentencing. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Pucinski, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 211190-B, Categories: juvenile Law, sentencing
J. Shanker vacates the trial court's refusal to grant defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses when he was 19 and sentenced to life imprisonment, early release under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act. The trial court improperly considered the degree to which the "'hallmark features of youth'" played a role in the crime. Vacated.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Shanker, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 22-CO-0650 , Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Gallagher finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to separate his assault and murder charges into two trials. The evidence for each of the sets of charges was simple and direct, while the crimes also occurred on separate dates at separate locations, which prevented any chance of confusion by the jury. However, the trial court erroneously failed to consider defendant's age of 17 at the time he committed the offenses, and so defendant's sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after 63 years will be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-467, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing
J. Streeter holds that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to modify a juvenile's commitment for attempted murder to a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life. The juvenile court met the requirements for good cause and was making a diligent effort to comply with a new statute. Also, the juvenile's equal protection rights were not violated by the juvenile court's refusal to apply his precommitment credits to his baseline term. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A166408, Categories: juvenile Law, Murder, sentencing