Montgomery v. Louisiana

13 Citing briefs

  1. KIRCHNER (KRISTOPHER) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed June 20, 2016

    Retroactive effect is appropriate through California’s collateral review proceedings. (See Teague v. Lane, supra, 489 U.S. 288; Schriro v. Summerlin, supra, 542 U.S. 348; Montgomery, supra, 136 S.Ct. at p. 731.) | Faced with the constitutional concerns raised in Miller, this Court affirmed in Gutierrez that the presumption of sentencing a juvenileto life without parole under Penal Code section 190.5 was unconstitutional.

  2. KIRCHNER (KRISTOPHER) ON H.C.

    Non-Title Respondent, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed August 19, 2016

    And Montgomery held while the second category ofjuveniles is entitled to relief, the form ofrelief may be different from thatof the first category ofjuveniles. (Montgomery, supra,136 S.Ct. at p. 736.) Gutierrez held that, from Miller forward, no future juvenile special circumstances murderer could be sentencedto LWOPwithout a Miller analysis accounting for his potential to rehabilitate.

  3. KIRCHNER (KRISTOPHER) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed September 12, 2016

    This is why the U.S. Supreme Court repeated the admonition, “rehabilitation cannot justify the sentence, as life without parole forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal.” (Montgomery, supra, 136 S.Ct. at p. 733.) 10 In re Kirchner ~- PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS Mr. Kirchner woudlikely have been sentencedto life with parole.

  4. PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

    Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed October 16, 2017

    ) Acknowledgingthe petitioner’s claims that he had evolved from a “troubled, misguided youth to a model memberofthe prison community,” the high court explained that such submissions were an example of one kind of evidence that prisoners might use to demonstrate rehabilitation. (Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at p. 736.) Such evidence can be presentedat a parole hearing. Montgomery does not appear to require or contemplate any sort of “baseline hearing”prior to the parole hearing.

  5. PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

    Appellant, Jesus Manuel Rodriguez, Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed July 31, 2017

    These rulings are retroactive. (Montgomery, supra, 136 S.Ct. at p. 736.) And we now know a term of years beyond a minor's natural life expectancy, such as was imposed on both appellants here, “amounts to the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence,” thus violates Graham and is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.

  6. PEOPLE v. CONTRERAS

    Respondent’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed March 27, 2017

    Again, PJDC does not ask the Court to notice this document. the question under the Eighth Amendmentis whether there is “hope” of some years outside prison (Montgomery,supra, 136 S.Ct. at pp. 736-737); alternatively expressed, a sentence may not deprive a juvenile ofliberty without “hopeofrestoration” (Graham, supra, 560 U.S. at p. 70), may not remove “any chance” to demonstrate that heis fit to rejoin society (id. at p. 79), and may not “guarantee” that he will die in prison (ibid.).. Even if perhaps imperfect, natural life expectancy data are not so skewed or unreliable as to mean that a juvenile no longer has “somerealistic opportunity” to obtain release (id. at p. 82) from a sentencethat falls within those parameters. PJDC maintainsthat life expectancies must properly take into account differences across not only gender, but also (notwithstanding this Court’s definition of natural life expectancy in Caballero) race, region and economic status.

  7. BRIGGS v. BROWN

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Habeas Corpus Resource Center

    Filed March 30, 2017

    See In re Huffman, 42 Cal. 3d 552, 555 (1986) (“The writ [of habeas corpus] will lie where the trial court has exceededits jurisdiction by sentencing a defendant ‘to a term in excess of the maximum provided by law’ .... ) (internal citation omitted); In re Harris, 5 Cal. 4th 813, 838-40 (1993) (collecting cases where the Court allowed inmate challenges to illegal sentences raised in habeas); In re Birdwell, 50 Cal. App. 4th 926, 931 (1997) (“[A]n unauthorized sentence maybe corrected at any time.”); People v. Sanchez, 245 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1417 (2016) (same) (citing People v. Scott, 9 Cal. 4th 331, 354 (1994); Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 723 (2016) (defendant permitted to challenge sentence as cruel and unusual punishment 50 years after his arrest). Thus, capital inmates with a valid constitutional basis for penalty- 19 C. Proposition 66 Violates the Equal Protection Rights of Capital Petitioners.

  8. KIRCHNER (KRISTOPHER) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed September 12, 2016

    May 27, 2011, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Senate Bill No. 9 enacted Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2). Judicial notice of the legislative committee analysis of Senate Bill No.9 is relevant becausethe parties differ in their interpretations of whetherit provides an adequate remedy at law pursuantto Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 2455] as interpreted by Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) _U.S.____ [136 S.Ct. 718]. To the extentthatthis difference creates ambiguity regarding the meaning and effect of section 1170, subdivision (d)(2), legislative history may be considered in determining the correct interpretation based on the intent of the Legislature.

  9. Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative et al v. Hogan et al

    MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed July 8, 2016

    See Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012) (holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole for juveniles); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74 (2010) (holding that sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of non-homicide offenses violate the Eighth Amendment); and Montgomery v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016) (applying Miller retroactively). These cases require that a juvenile offender be afforded a “meaningful” opportunity to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation to parole authorities through the “means and mechanisms” made available by the State.

  10. PEOPLE v. FRANKLIN

    Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed February 23, 2016

    ece ccceceeteeaeeeeeeeeeeeseeseseesuaeunenees 2, 6,9 People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514...ccc cece cece ececececenteseeestsceeeeseusveseseaeeessareeenas9 State v. Mares (Wyo.2014) 335 P.3d 487.00... cece scence ec eceenen ee eeeee esse ee eeeeneneneaeeeuees7,8 Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288.20...c ccc ence eee ececeeeeeeaeeeeteseaeeseeaseesaeeuseaeesaeaners3 United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. B21... ccc ccc cece ccc e een eeeeneeceateaeeecsvecueeensseaeeserseenenes9 STATUTES California Penal Code § BOS... cece cece eee ceeeeeeeeseceeegeesetseeereeeseneneess 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 Wyoming Revised Statutes § 6-30-301 .... 2... cece cee eee cece eee eeeeneeeenees webecceaceeeeeeeaeeseeeeeeuns 4,7,8 § 7-30-4002... ccc cece cc ecc ee eeeeenseeneeseeseesepenteaeeeeeuserteesuesseeees7,8 li INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.520, appellant Tyris Franklin submits the following supplemental brief to address the impact of Montgomeryv. Louisiana (2016) _ U.S. _, 136 S.Ct. 718 [2016 WL 280758] (“Montgomery”). Montgomery was decidedafter the completion of merits briefing in this case.