Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-06-2024
Case Style:
State of Arizona v. Jumar K. Stewart
Case Number: CR2003005069001D
Judge: Kerstin G. LeMaire
Court: Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona
Plaintiff's Attorney: Maricopa County, Arizona District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Phoenix, Arizona criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant seeking post-conviction relief.
After a 2005 jury trial, Stewart-who was a juvenile at the time of the offenses-was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years for the murder and a consecutive twelve-year prison term for the assault. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Stewart, No. 1 CA-CR 05-0549 (Ariz. App. Apr. 18, 2006) (mem. decision). Stewart sought and was denied post-conviction relief. State v. Stewart, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0200-PR (Ariz. App. June 10, 2016) (mem. decision). After his first proceeding was dismissed for failure to file a petition, Stewart again sought and was denied post-conviction relief. Id. ¶ 2. In that second proceeding, Stewart argued that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), constituted a significant change in the law entitling him to relief from his life sentence. Id. ¶ 3. In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held 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.'" 567 U.S. at 465.
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. The case addresses whether the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing a successive petition for post-conviction relief based on a claimed significant change in law under Miller v. Alabama regarding juvenile sentencing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EIGHTH AMENDMENT. The judgment considers whether aggregate sentences for separate crimes committed by a juvenile, that exceed the juvenile's life expectancy, violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments as interpreted through Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SENTENCING HEARINGS. The court examines if the sentencing procedure was consistent with Miller and Montgomery, requiring that the sentencing court consider the juvenile offender's age and related mitigating factors before imposing a life sentence without parole.
Key Phrases Juvenile life without parole. Post-conviction relief. Significant change in the law. Mitigating factors. Discretionary sentencing procedure.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: