Over the past 14 years, the Supreme Court has issued three significant rulings on how the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” applies in the context of sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
First, in 2012, it held in Miller v. Alabama that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates” this sentence, and that, in general, the sentence of life without parole should be “uncommon” and imposed only after a sentencer has considered a child’s “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” Then, in 2016’s Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court considered whether Miller applied retroactively, holding that it does and again emphasizing “that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but the ‘rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.’”
Finally, in 2021, the court decided Jones v. Mississippi, which asked whether, under Miller and Montgomery, a sentencer must “make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing the defendant to life without parole.” It held that no such factual finding is necessary, because, according to the majority, Miller required only “that a sentencer consider youth as a mitigating factor.”
With these three rulings, the court aimed to clear up persistent confusion over what exactly a trial court needs to consider when sentencing a juvenile offender to a life sentence without any chance of parole. And yet questions still linger, according to a petition for review awaiting the court’s attention, which urges the court to again address these circumstances.
The petition centers on Morris Mullins, who was charged with the rape and aggravated murder of Amy Davis in May 2001, when he was 17 years old. “Mullins pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for the State dropping the rape charge and taking the death penalty off the table,” according to the Utah Supreme Court. During the sentencing phase of Mullins’ trial, the judge considered whether he should be eligible for parole in the future, hearing competing claims about his dysfunctional upbringing and propensity for violence. The judge ultimately sentenced Mullins to life without parole but expressed hope that he would make something of his life. “[I]f you’re gonna be with us for a long time and have a chance to change, I hope—not under the present circumstances—I’m hoping you’ll find some way to be productive,” the judge said.
After the Supreme Court decided Miller, Mullins challenged his sentence, contending that the judge had not properly considered his age and that, as a result, his sentence was unconstitutional. A Utah district court disagreed, concluding that the judge had appropriately weighed Mullins’ age along with other mitigating factors. However, the Utah Supreme Court, in a divided ruling, held that the record was unclear as to whether the sentencing court “properly consider[ed] Mullins’s youth” and noted that the judge, through his final comment to Mullins, appeared to acknowledge that he “might have the capacity for change.” It vacated Mullins’ sentence and remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing.
In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Utah asserts that the state supreme court’s ruling is the product of ongoing confusion surrounding “Miller and its progeny.” The state asks the justices to address whether a judge may sentence a juvenile to life without parole even after suggesting that the “juvenile is capable of change and reform,” noting that “state and federal courts are split on” this question. Utah further argues that the Supreme Court should side with those courts that have found “that even corrigible juvenile offenders may be sentenced to” life without parole, because, in their view, “consideration of youth” is all that’s required by the Miller line of cases, not a specific outcome after such consideration.
In his response to the petition for review, Mullins contends that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over his case, because it has “not reached final judgment.” This is because Mullins’ “resentencing has yet to take place.” Mullins further argues that “the question presented has little significance” for the country, because “[o]nly a small and shrinking number of states ever impose life without parole on juvenile offenders.”
Utah v. Mullins is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their “long conference” on Sept. 28.