Michigan charged and tried the named plaintiffs as adults for acts they committed while under the age of 18. Each received a conviction for first-degree murder and a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2010, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Michigan statutory scheme that barred them from parole eligibility. Since then, the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama (2012), “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,’” Michigan amended its juvenile offender laws in light of Miller, but made some changes contingent upon either the Michigan Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court announcing that Miller applied retroactively, and the U.S. Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), that Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders is retroactive. The district court held, in 2013, that Miller should apply retroactively and issued an injunction requiring compliance with Miller. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for consideration of remedies in the context of the new legal landscape and to determine whether class certification is required to extend relief to non-plaintiffs. View "Hill v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Appellant, a juvenile, was charged with misdemeanor sexual misconduct and felony possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor based on his sexual conduct with his also-underage girlfriend. Appellant entered an unconditional admission to amended charges. The district court subsequently entered an adjudication finding that Appellant committed the alleged conduct. The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals denied Appellant’s motion for discretionary review. The Supreme Court initially granted discretionary review to address Appellant’s constitutional claims. However, because Appellant entered what amounts to an unconditional guilty plea, the Supreme Court remanded the matter with directions that the appeal be dismissed, holding that Appellant waived his right to an appeal in this case. View "B.H. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

K.A., a twelve-year-old, middle-school boy, committed "inappropriate acts" outside his school, for which he was adjudged delinquent under a Vermont statute prohibiting lewd acts relating to prostitution. The charges stemmed from a school-yard game of four-square: "S.K." and K.A. were friends. K.A. approached, said his hands were cold, and asked to put his hands in her jacket pockets. S.K. said no, but K.A. reached his hands into her pockets anyway. Then K.A. began walking backward towards a snowbank a few feet away, pulling S.K. with him by her pockets. As he pulled her, K.A. pressed against S.K. and told her to kiss him or he would throw her in the snowbank. S.K. again said no and tried to remove his hands from her pockets. Then, the trial court found, K.A. tried to get his hands under the waistband of the girl’s jeans while his hands were still in her outside coat pockets. S.K.’s belt prevented K.A.’s hands from going down the front of her pants. Ultimately, K.A. did not kiss S.K. or throw her into the snowbank; instead, he pulled her back towards the school, again using his hands in her pockets as leverage. As the two neared the building, a teacher saw them and yelled at K.A. to take his hands out of S.K.’s pockets. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that K.A committed simple assault and engaged in a prohibited act, lewdness. The trial court granted the judgment of acquittal with regard to simple assault, but not with regard to engaging in lewdness. K.A. argued on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt, K.A. attempted to commit a prohibited lewd act; and (2) the trial court improperly amended the charge from committing a lewd act to attempting to commit a lewd act. The Supreme Court concluded that the charge against K.A. failed for insufficient evidence that his actions were an attempt to engage in a lewd act of prostitution. “Discretion to prosecute persons who have committed crimes is one thing; prosecutorial discretion to decide whether conduct is criminal in the first instance is another. The latter invites arbitrary enforcement and contravenes the separation of powers inherent in our constitutional government.” View "In re K.A." on Justia Law

In 2012, J.C., a minor. admitted to second-degree​ burglary by shoplifting (Penal Code 459 & 460(b)), then a felony. In 2014, the electorate passed Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which reduced several crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including shoplifting, if the stolen property was worth less than $950. Proposition 47 also allowed a person serving a felony sentence for a crime reduced to a misdemeanor to petition for redesignation of the conviction and a reduction in sentence. J.C. petitioned to reduce her felony violation to a misdemeanor and to have her DNA record expunged from the state databank, on the theory she would not have been required to provide a DNA sample as a misdemeanant. The juvenile court reduced her violation to a misdemeanor, but declined to order expungement of her DNA record. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of expungement. After J.C.'s filing, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1492, prohibiting granting a request for expungement in connection with a petition for recall of sentence under Proposition 47. Because Bill 1492 clarifies, rather than changes, the meaning of the relevant provisions of Proposition 47, it applies to requests for expungement made prior to its enactment. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

Defendant, a juvenile, was bound over to the common pleas court and indicted on four counts of aggravated murder, among related crimes. Defendant moved to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation, arguing that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and that his statements were not voluntary. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant subsequently pled no contest to four counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and three counts of tampering with evidence, all with firearm specifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that where, as in this case, the interrogation of the defendant is recorded electronically, the statements made are presumed to have been made voluntarily pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2933.81(B). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 2933.81(B) does not affect the analysis of whether a suspect intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and therefore, the State retains the burden to prove a valid waiver; and (2) as applied to statements a juvenile makes during a custodial interrogation, the section 2933.81(B) presumption that such statements are voluntary is unconstitutional. Remanded. View "State v. Barker" on Justia Law

The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition against seventeen-year-old C.J.H. Defense counsel at the first appearance told the juvenile court that the parties had agreed to a “continuance for dismissal.” Without finding that the allegations in the charging document had been proved, the juvenile court continued the delinquency proceeding and, approximately nine months later, terminated the continuance. The juvenile court subsequently adjudicated C.J.H. delinquent. C.J.H. appealed, arguing that the proceedings at the first appearance constituted a “continuance without adjudication” because he unconditionally admitted the charged offense. Therefore, C.J.H. argued, under Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 15.05, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expired before he was adjudicated delinquent. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expired before C.J.H. was adjudicated delinquent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the plain language of Rule 15.05 requires a juvenile court to find the allegations in the charging document to have been proven before continuing the case without adjudication; and (2) because no such finding was made in this case, the proceedings at C.J.H.’s first appearance did not constitute a continuance without adjudication. View "In re Welfare of C.J.H." on Justia Law

T.L.M. appealed the judgments in his three cases. The court of appeals granted a limited remand of the three cases for the juvenile court to rule on the recalculation of credit on his sentence. The juvenile court subsequently awarded T.L.M. additional credit for time served. The State filed a notice of appeal of each of T.L.M.’s cases in the juvenile court, which were dismissed for a procedural defect. The State then filed a second set of notices of appeal with accompanying motions for leave to appeal, but the motions were filed after the deadline for such an appeal had passed. T.L.M. moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals denied the motions and granted the State’s motions for leave to appeal. T.L.M. requested a peremptory writ to hold in abeyance the appellate court proceedings and prohibit the court of appeals from hearing the appeals. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the court of appeals never obtained jurisdiction to decide whether the State could appeal because the State did not file its motions in the court of appeals before the deadline. View "State ex rel. T.L.M. v. Judges of the First Dist. Court of Appeals" on Justia Law

After an adjudication, Respondent was found delinquent for engaging in second-degree child molestation sexual assault. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the family court ordered that Respondent register as a sex offender. Respondent appealed, arguing that legally sufficient evidence did not exist to support the finding that he was delinquent because his actions were motivated by sexual arousal or gratification. The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication of the family court, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial justice’s finding that Respondent touched the complainant for the purposes of sexual gratification. View "In re Kyle A." on Justia Law

In 2013 and 2014, minor Y.A. had two petitions filed against her alleging offenses for unrelated incidents. For each petition, she was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation. Y.A. satisfactorily completed the terms of probation for only the offense alleged in the later-filed petition, which was then dismissed and all records pertaining to it sealed. Records relating to the prior petition were not sealed. The issue in this appeal was whether, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, a juvenile court could seal the records pertaining to a prior petition against a minor when the minor satisfactorily completed probation for an offense alleged in a later-filed petition. Based on the plain language of the statute, the Court of Appeal concluded it could not. View "In re Y.A.." on Justia Law

Defendant, 16 years old at the time of the offenses, was convicted of felony murder and related charges resulting in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Miller v. Alabama subsequently held unconstitutional for juvenile offenders mandatory terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The district court refused to appoint a neuropsychological expert under 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e) on resentencing. The court concluded that, under these circumstances, a reasonably competent attorney would have found the services of the requested expert necessary to provide adequate representation at defendant’s resentencing. By precluding defendant from developing this potential mitigating evidence, the district court abused its discretion. The court also concluded that a reasonable attorney would have considered an up-to-date neuropsychological evaluation necessary had defendant been a nonindigent defendant. And because a current evaluation could have provided mitigating evidence in support of a lesser sentence, defendant was sufficiently prejudiced by the failure to appoint a psychological expert before resentencing. Therefore, the court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court further concluded that defendant has not shown the district court erred by calculating the Guidelines’ recommended base offense level as 43; defendant has not demonstrated that the district court committed prejudicial error when it considered the PSR’s calculation of criminal history points attributed to his juvenile offenses; and, even assuming that defendant’s objection to the district court’s calculation of his criminal history category based on his juvenile offenses was forfeited, as opposed to waived, and assuming the district court committed plain error by attributing criminal history points to three of his juvenile offenses, defendant has not shown prejudice as a result of the error. View "United States v. Pete" on Justia Law