Case No. 18-217 | 4th Cir.
Preview by Boseul (Jenny) Jeong, Online Editor
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” Id. at 465. Then in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), the Court announced that Miller has a retroactive effect on collateral review of cases. Mathena v. Malvo concerns the scope of these Supreme Court decisions.
The defendant in this case was sentenced to life without parole before Miller was decided. Upon the review of the defendant’s entitlement to a habeas petition in light of Miller and Montgomery, the district court vacated previous sentences and ordered a resentencing without considering whether the penalty system of Virginia, where the defendant was convicted, was mandatory or discretionary. The Fourth Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court’s decision based on the reasoning that a discretionary life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender violates Miller unless the court first establishes permanent incorrigibility.
The main contention in this case is over the meaning of Miller: whether it applies to discretionary life-without-parole sentences. The petitioner argues that based upon Miller and Montgomery’s use of the term “mandatory” and other words that have a similar meaning, the scope of the decision is limited to mandatory sentences. The petitioner additionally argued that the case should have been decided upon the retroactivity only and the question of actual rights should have been asked separately. The respondent on the other hand argues that Miller requires “actual” consideration of youth in sentencing and this “discretionary” sentencing still violates Miller.
Quite a few amicus briefs were filed for this case. For example, fifteen states (Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) filed a brief for the petitioner calling for states’ sovereign governance over their sentencing practice. The United States also filed a brief in support of the petitioner. One brief by a victim’s assistance group filed for the respondent argued that the lower court’s decision violated victims’ rights by retraumatizing them.
The Supreme Court’s decision may reshape the Eighth Amendment.