Sentencing
The Fifth District Ohio Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a sentence of a 17 year old because the trial court failed to consider youth-mitigating factors during sentencing. The court stated in relevant part: “On a silent record, a trial court is presumed to have considered the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing, and the…
This report from Human Rights for Kids details survey results from 2,200 individuals who were incarcerated as adults for crimes they committed as children. The findings from the report demonstrate the fact that “children tried as adults are often victims long before they became [system-involved],” discusses the intersection between childhood trauma and the legal system,…
This article was published by Josiah Rutledge in the George Washington Law Review. From the abstract: In modern criminal prosecutions, the determination of guilt is often little more than a formality. It sets the stage for the main event: sentencing. Sentencing, in turn, is driven by facts about both the offense and the offender. Years…
The Supreme Court of Vermont held that proceeding with sentencing without a previously ordered psychosexual evaluation that would take into account a young person’s disability constituted plain error, warranting vacatur and resentencing. The Court stated in relevant part: The absence of the psychosexual evaluation affected defendant’s right to have his sentence be based on accurate…
The Illinois First District Court of Appeals granted a full evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition based on new research on late adolescent brain development that was unavailable at the original sentencing hearing in 2001 and a detailed affidavit connecting that research to the individual’s childhood abuse and trauma. The court stated in relevant part:…
The New York Court of Appeals struck a search condition on a probation order, holding that the condition is not reasonably related to the underlying offense. The court stated in relevant part: As we explained in People v Letterlough (86 NY2d 259, 655 N.E.2d 146, 631 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1996]), “[t]he overriding purpose of imposing a sentence…
The Illinois 1st District Court of Appeals granted an individual to proceed on a postconviction hearing to challenge his life sentence based on the state’s proportionate penalties clause. The court held that the individual who 18 at the time of the offense was entitled to present mitigating evidence about his age and youthfulness. The court…
From the abstract: “Mass incarceration in the United States has been driven largely by increasingly long sentences, particularly for individuals convicted of violent offenses. A major obstacle to reversing this trend is the widespread belief that these sentences cannot be revisited. While there has been a growing recognition across political and ideological lines that far…
The California 2nd District Court of Appeal vacated a sentence enhancement, finding that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to present a closing argument. The court stated in relevant part: Under the determinate sentencing scheme, the court may not impose an upper term sentence unless an aggravating circumstance applies. (§ 1170,…
From the abstract: “Among the constellation of actors who appear in courtrooms every day, probation has been largely overlooked in conversations and debates about institutional reform in the criminal legal system. Prior scholarship has focused on probation’s role in administering the sentence of probation. This Article calls for recognizing probation as a key institutional player…
From the report by UCLA Center for the Developing Adolescent: “Adolescence, the years between 10 and 25, is a period of profound psychological, social, and brain development. Physical changes during these years are happening at the same time as changes to our social world, as we take on new responsibilities, gain new agency in our…
“In New York State, children as young as thirteen can be processed as adults and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to sentence the defendant to a statutorily set minimum term of imprisonment. Practitioners, judges, and researchers question the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences, finding that they are ineffective at deterring…
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a trial court must consider mental health attributes at sentencing pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the Oregon state constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated in relevant part: “We agree with defendant that ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide that objective societal standard. Through…
This one-pager from the Juvenile Law Center can be used as an educational tool for judges, policy makers, community members and other decision makers when talking about transfer to adult court. From the one-pager: “Policies that try children in the adult court system fail to consider the harms of youth transfer, the unique developmental characteristics…
The Florida Court of Appeals, Second District, found the trial court erred when it decided to make an upward departure from the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation and failed to explain why the departure was most appropriate for T.S.’s individual rehabilitative needs. The court reasoned in part: “Simply listing ‘reasons’ that are…
The Ohio Court of Appeals, Fourth District, vacated and remanded the trial court’s restitution order, where the trial court allowed unsworn testimony from the victim about restitution and a failed to hold a contested restitution hearing pursuant to state statute. The court reasoned in part: ““‘“[T]he amount of the restitution must be supported by competent,…
This letter written and submitted to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on behalf of the Gault Center, outlines its reasons for supporting Maryland Bill No. 323 (named the Youth Charging Reform Act), which would limit the types of cases eligible for automatic transfer to adult court. From the letter: “The Gault Center: Defenders of…
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the district court failed to make findings of fact required by statute when ordering restitution and remanded the case for the trial court to make the requisite findings. The court held in relevant part: “Juvenile-delinquency orders require written findings “to show that the district court considered vital standards…
The Illinois 1st District Court of Appeals held that a statutory minimum sentence that effectively amounted to a de facto life sentence as applied to youth violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court reasoned that the core takeaway of Miller v. Alabama is that “there must be an exercise of…
The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that gang enhancements may form the basis of a petition for habeas relief and appointment of counsel under the state’s Racial Justice Act. The court stated in relevant part: “The present petition alleges racially disparate treatment, and it identifies the statutory subsections implicated as the basis for the…
This report from the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth provides a national overview of the progress states have made post-Montgomery in changing sentencing laws for young people in adult court facing life without parole and other lengthy sentences, and opportunities for continued legislative, legal and policy change. From the resource: Ten years ago, the…
The California Supreme Court held that the imposition of punitive fines and ancillary costs ordered as part of a criminal sentencing raises equal protection issues that require courts to consider ability to pay before imposing fines and costs. The Court stated in relevant part: “In sum, in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers…
The Colorado Supreme Court held that “when a municipal ordinance and a state statute prohibit identical conduct, the municipal penalties for such conduct may not exceed the corresponding state penalties for that conduct.”
The Oregon Court of Appeals examined a state sentencing statute that prohibits juvenile life without parole sentences (ORS 161.740) and held that it applies when an individual is convicted in adult court and sentenced for an offense committed when they were under the age of 18 if the sentence was imposed on or after January…
