If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Raleigh, North Carolina criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with first-degree murder.


The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile defendant to a term of life without parole without consideration of the juvenile's age and attendant circumstances, and that such a sentence is constitutionally impermissible for the majority of juvenile offenders-specifically those who, upon consideration of their age, the unique circumstances of their respective lives, and the nature of their charged crimes, have been excluded from the narrow category of juveniles who at the time of sentencing can be deemed to be permanently incorrigible or irredeemable. See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 195 (2016) (stating that "a lifetime in prison is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest of children, those whose crimes reflect 'irreparable corruption.'" (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479-80 (2012) (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005))). In the present case, this Court ponders a potential extension of this cited precedent as we consider whether a fifteen-year-old juvenile defendant's sentences of (1) 240 to 348 months of imprisonment for a conviction of rape and (2) life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for a conviction of murder, ordered by a trial court to run consecutively which will keep defendant incarcerated until the age of sixty years before having the opportunity to demonstrate that he should be allowed to be released on parole, combine to constitute a de facto sentence of life without parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution. This is a question of first impression for this Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States likewise has not yet explicitly addressed this specific circumstance.

* * *


In June 2015, when he was fourteen years old, defendant had a disagreement with Adams and Adams's mother, so defendant again left Savannah Road to reside with his mother and stepfather in South Carolina. Defendant subsequently drifted among his father, his father's ex-wife, and his stepsister and her boyfriend in his places of residence. Defendant's seizures increased in frequency at this juncture, numbering as many as six to ten per night, which led to a change in his medications. Around February 2016, defendant briefly moved to Florida to live with his father, and then returned to his mother's home for a short stint, but he ultimately returned to Savannah Road so that he could spend time with Adams and be largely unsupervised. On 22 February 2016, defendant's mother and stepfather took defendant to a doctor because defendant was continuing to withstand up to a dozen seizures on a nightly basis. By 25 February 2016, defendant's nocturnal epilepsy was getting progressively worse, so he went to another doctor who thought the seizures might be due to PTSD.

Outcome:
By virtue of the trial court's judgment in the juvenile's case, defendant here was expressly determined to be included in the category of juvenile offenders who should retain the opportunity to seek parole, despite his convictions for the offenses of first-degree murder and first-degree rape. After serving forty years of incarceration for these crimes pursuant to the implementation of consecutive sentences, defendant possesses the opportunity to be considered for parole. To compel defendant to serve a term of incarceration in excess of forty years upon the trial court's determination that defendant, in light of his status as a juvenile, is neither incorrigible nor irredeemable, would unconstitutionally constitute a de facto life sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the appealable issue before us. The remaining issues addressed by the Court of Appeals are not properly before this Court and its decision as to these issues remains undisturbed. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: