Graham v. Florida

46 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Pirates and the Rule of Law: Mandatory Life Sentences

    Norman A. Thomas, PLLCNorman A. ThomasAugust 1, 2015

    The co-defendants thereafter asserted an Eighth Amendment, as-applied challenge to §1651’s mandatory life sentence provision. They contended that the life sentence provision constituted cruel and unusual punishment, under the two-prong test of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010):The district court explained that, under prong one, a court must “compare the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence,” and determine “if that comparison yields ‘an inference of gross disproportionality,’ which should be a ‘rare’ result.” See Eighth Amendment Order 6 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 60).

  2. Juvenile’s homicide sentence valid under Graham, Miller, and Montgomery

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJuly 3, 2017

    to petition for release to extended supervision under § 302.114(5), Paape after 30 years, Barbeau after about 35 years. Both argued their sentences were invalid under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). The court of appeals rejected Barbeau’s arguments last year, State v.Barbeau, 2016 WI App 51, 370 Wis. 2d 736, 883 N.W.2d 520, and it now rejects Paape’s arguments.

  3. JUVENILE JUSTICE

    Alexander Blewett III School of Law - Montana UniversityMorgan ChandlerApril 27, 2016

    [5] Jessica E. Brown, Classifying Juveniles “Among the Worst Offenders”: Utilizing Roper v. Simmons to Challenge Registration and Notification Requirements for Adolescent Sex offenders, 39 STETSON L. REV. 369, 371 (Winter 2010).[6] Britney M. Bowater, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: Is there a better way to tailor the sentences of juvenile sex offenders?, 57 CATH. U. L. REV. 817 (Spring 2008).[7] U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII (see also Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568-75 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010); Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). [8] Bowater at 819.

  4. Should a Modern Science-Based Understanding of the Juvenile Mind Apply to the Already Convicted?

    Leslie ShoebothamOctober 13, 2015

    The Court has previously considered the Eighth Amendment’s applicability to juvenile offenders. In that respect, this post focuses on the juvenile-offender trifecta of Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).In Roper, the Court addressed whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permitted execution of a juvenile offender between the ages of 15 and 18 who committed a capital crime.

  5. Preview: Montgomery v. Louisiana: Should a Modern Science-Based Understanding of the Juvenile Mind Apply to the Already Convicted?, by Leslie Shoebotham

    Hamilton and Griffin on RightsLeslie ShoebothamOctober 12, 2015

    The Court has previously considered the Eighth Amendment’s applicability to juvenile offenders. In that respect, this post focuses on the juvenile-offender trifecta of Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).In Roper, the Court addressed whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permitted execution of a juvenile offender between the ages of 15 and 18 who committed a capital crime.

  6. A Debate within the Virginia Supreme Court: De Facto Life Sentences for Juveniles and the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

    Norman A. Thomas, PLLCNorman ThomasOctober 10, 2017

    First, under Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005), the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments “forbid imposition of the death penalty” on juvenile offenders. Next came Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 77 (2010), wherein the Court forbade imposition of life-without-parole on a “juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” Third, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ____ (2012), the Court ruled that “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.”

  7. SCOTUS suggests it might not take much to satisfy Graham’s “meaningful opportunity for release” standard for juveniles serving life

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 20, 2017

    Virginia v. Dennis LeBlanc, USSC No. 16-1177, 2017 WL 2507375 (June 12, 2017), reversingLeBlanc v. Mathena, 841 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)Although this is a per curiam decision and it’s decided under the rubric of federal habeas review, the upshot of this opinion is that states won’t have to do too much to satisfy the requirement under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010), that a state give a juvenile serving life without parole “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on a demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”LeBlanc was sentenced to life without parole for a sexual assault he committed when he was 16.

  8. A Debate within the Virginia Supreme Court: De Facto Life Sentences for Juveniles and the Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

    Norman A. Thomas, PLLCNorman A. ThomasMarch 1, 2016

    First, under Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005), the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments “forbid imposition of the death penalty” on juvenile offenders. Next came Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 77 (2010), wherein the Court forbade imposition of life-without-parole on a “juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” Third, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ____ (2012), the Court ruled that “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.”

  9. SCOTUS tackles juvenile life-without-parole sentences again

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderMarch 21, 2019

    Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Court barred life-without-release sentences for nonhomicide offenses. Next, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), it struck down sentencing schemes that mandate life in prison without the possibility of release. Finally, Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), held that Miller applies retroactively.

  10. Challenges to juvenile’s life sentence rejected

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderOctober 7, 2018

    Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), barred the death penalty for juvenile offenses. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), barred life-without-release sentences for nonhomicide offenses. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), struck down sentencing schemes that mandate life in prison without the possibility of release.