In 2006, when Lopes was 17 years old, she entered a plea of no contest to felony driving under the influence with injury under section 23153(a) and was detained as a ward of the court and committed to a DUI Youth Program with a maximum time of confinement of 38 months. In 2014, Lopes was charged with driving under the influence (section 23152(a)) and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more. Both charges were alleged as felonies pursuant to section 23550.5 due to the prior juvenile adjudication. The court ruled that her juvenile adjudication could not be used to elevate the DUI to a felony. Lopes then entered a plea of no contest to misdemeanor violation. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that a juvenile adjudication does not qualify as a “prior violation . . . that was punished as a felony” so as to elevate a misdemeanor driving under the influence offense to a felony under Vehicle Code section 23550.5. View "People v. Lopes" on Justia Law

After a police officer scanned Instagram and saw photos of appellant (then on probation) and others in possession of firearms, officers performed a probation search and found loaded firearms. The San Francisco County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant, age 17, with two counts of possessing firearms. The juvenile court sustained the petition. The court of appeal remanded for the limited purpose of supplying the maximum term of confinement and custody credits, mandatory information in the dispositional order that was omitted, but otherwise affirmed. The court rejected arguments that the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding and that the court erred in admitting incriminating photographs over his objection on the ground they were not properly authenticated and erred in allowing a police officer to give expert testimony about the make and model of the recovered firearms without first qualifying him as an expert. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

Z.V., then 15 years old and in foster care, was sexually assaulted by Riverside County social worker Birdsong in September 2009. Z.V. sought to hold Birdsong’s employer, Riverside County, responsible for the assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trial court rejected the theory. The court of appeal affirmed, noting that Birdsong was not Z.V.’s assigned social worker, he merely volunteered to transport Z.V. to a new foster home at the end of the workday. The sexual assault took place after 8:30 at night, several hours after Birdsong’s shift would have normally finished, and after he had already completed the task of delivering Z.V. to the new home without incident. It was several hours after the delivery that Birdsong went back to pick up Z.V. under the pretext of building “rapport,” took him to a liquor store and then to Birdsong’s own apartment, where the attack took place. View "Z.V. v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

In 2009, a jury found Thompson guilty of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree murder while committing aggravated robbery. Thompson was 17 when he committed the crimes. Pursuant to Minnesota law, he received two consecutive mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Thompson’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court (Miller decision) held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. Thompson sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court dismissed with prejudice, finding that Miller’s rule was not retroactively applicable. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Miller did not announce a new substantive rule because it neither categorically barred a punishment nor placed a group of persons beyond the state’s power to punish. After Miller, as before, a court retains the power to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. That the sentence now must be discretionary does not alter its substance. View "Thompson v. Roy" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court granted review in two cases to determine what remedy is appropriate for juvenile defendants who were given sentences that would be unconstitutional under the federal Supreme Court's decision in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). The issue in a third case centered on whether that remedy applies retroactively. Tenarro Banks and Michael Quinn Tate, were convicted in 2004 of class 1 felonies for acts committed when they were juveniles. Tate was convicted of felony murder for the stabbing death of a friend's father during a burglary when Tate was sixteen. Banks was convicted of first degree murder for shooting another teenager outside of a house party when he was fifteen. Under the sentencing scheme in place at the time, which governed offenses committed between 1990 and 2006, both Banks and Tate were given mandatory sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole ("LWOP"). While both cases were pending on appeal to the court of appeals, the Supreme Court released its opinion in "Miller." The Miller decision rendered the Colorado statutory scheme for mandatory LWOP in place between 1990 and 2006 unconstitutional as applied to juveniles, including Tate and Banks. The Colorado Court determined that the state legislature had not acted to adopt a new sentencing scheme in light of Miller. The Court therefore remanded these cases for such a determination: if the trial court should determine, after an individualized sentencing process, that LWOP was not warranted, the appropriate sentence (in the absence of legislative action) was life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years ("LWPP"). This was the sentence that was in place both before and after the mandatory LWOP scheme at issue in this case—that is, before 1990 and after 2006. Eric Jensen was convicted in 1998 of first degree murder for helping a friend kill the friend's mother and dispose of the body. He committed this crime when he was seventeen. Under the sentencing scheme in place at the time, Jensen was given a mandatory sentence to LWOP. On direct appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment. The Colorado Court denied Jensen's certiorari petition, and the judgment became final. Jensen later filed two Crim.P. 35(c) motions for post-conviction relief, the second of which was at issue here: the trial court denied the motion, and Jensen appealed to the court of appeals. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court released Miller. Jensen moved for post-conviction relief in light of Miller. The issue Jensen's case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether Miller's holding was retroactive to Jensen's case. The Court concluded that the new rule announced in Miller was procedural, rather than substantive, in nature, and that therefore it did not apply retroactively. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. View "Colorado v. Tate" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree. Defendant was sixteen years old at the time of the crimes. Defendant was sentenced in 1994 to two consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. At the time of his sentencing, the distinction between consecutive and concurrent sentences had little practical impact, but the Supreme Judicial Court’s subsequent decisions in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. and Commonwealth v. Brown changed that. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Diatchenko and Brown, Defendant moved for resentencing. The trial court judge concluded that Defendant was entitled to a resentencing proceeding on the issue of whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that a trial court judge, in resentencing a juvenile offender originally sentenced to multiple consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole, may conduct a sentencing hearing to consider resentencing the juvenile offender to concurrent terms. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Costa" on Justia Law

In 2000, Atkins, age 16, found his mother crying. Atkins claim his step-father regularly abused him and his mother. Atkins went into the step-father’s bedroom, carrying a baseball bat. The step-father reached for what Atkins believed to be a gun. Atkins swung the bat several times, killing the step-father. Atkins was convicted of first-degree murder. Atkins unsuccessfully appealed without raising ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims. In unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings, he alleged IAC. In 2009, Atkins, pro se, sought habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, claiming that juvenile counsel failed to explain his right to testify and that such testimony would not be used against him; refused the state’s motion for a mental evaluation; and failed to raise an insanity defense after Atkins stated he was “hearing voices.” Atkins asserted that trial counsel failed to: move to suppress Atkins’s statement to police; object to the prosecutor’s extracting an improper promise from the jury during voir dire; request a curative instruction concerning improper testimony; object to descriptions of graphic photos after the photos themselves were ruled inadmissible; adequately cross-examine as to how long the step-father may have survived after the attack; call Atkins’s mother as a witness; question whether the step-father’s medical problems could have contributed to his death; call any expert witness; rebut evidence concerning the step-father’s peaceable character; seek “reckless homicide” and “criminally negligent homicide” jury instructions; and raise an insanity defense. The court denied Atkins’s petition finding that all but one claim procedurally defaulted. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding certain claims not defaulted. View "Atkins v. Holloway" on Justia Law

A.D.T. was adjudicated as a delinquent youth and juvenile offender. A.D.T. was later transferred to district court pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-5-208 for supervision by the Department of Corrections when he reached his eighteenth birthday. Thereafter, the district court imposed forty-one new conditions to A.D.T.’s probation and supervision. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke A.D.T.’s probation. A.D.T. moved to dismiss the State’s revocation petition, arguing that imposition of the forty-one conditions violated section 41-5-208(4) and exceeded the scope of the youth court’s disposition and transfer order. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, found that A.D.T. had violated terms of his probation, and placed him on formal probation with Adult Probation and Parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying A.D.T.’s motion to dismiss the petition regarding those conditions which were not originally set forth in the youth court’s disposition or transfer order; but (2) correctly determined that there were conditions of the underlying youth court disposition that were violated and thus did not err in imposing conditions pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 46-18-201 through -203. View "In re A.D.T." on Justia Law

Defendant was seventeen years old when he committed first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole, as required by Iowa law. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Before the trial court heard the motion and shortly after Miller v. Alabama was decided, Iowa’s Governor commuted the sentences of all juveniles previously convicted of first-degree murder to a life sentence with the possibility of parole after sixty years. The trial court then granted Defendant’s motion to the extent his sentence was imposed without “individualized consideration of the circumstances.” The court upheld Defendant’s sentence of life with parole eligibility after sixty years as commuted by the Governor. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding (1) a court must use certain factors when it sentences a juvenile offender for first-degree murder; and (2) because the district court did not have the benefit of this decision when it sentenced Defendant, this case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Seats" on Justia Law

This case began as a call for police assistance to E.J.J. 's house to help with his intoxicated, out-of-control sister, R.J. (a juvenile at the time). The police responded and began their intervention by escorting R.J. out of the house 10 to 15 feet away from the front door, where the officers attempted to calm her down. E.J.J. grew concerned when he saw an officer reach for what he perceived to be a nightstick. E.J.J. exited the house and stood on the porch, telling the officers that R.J. was his sister and that they should not use the nightstick. The officers advised him that they were in the middle of their investigation and instructed him multiple times to leave the scene and return to the house. Initially, E.J.J. did not comply. When he did return to the home, he stood in an open doorway and continued his verbal interaction with the officers. The officers directed E.J.J. multiple times to close the solid wood door and to withdraw further into the home, but E.J.J. refused, stating that he wanted to make sure that R.J. was not harmed. E.J.J. continued to stand behind a closed wrought iron door. Multiple times, an officer reached into the home to close the solid door. E.J.J. would immediately reopen it. At this point, E.J.J. was irate, yelling profanities and calling the officers abusive names. An officer warned E.J.J. that he could be arrested for obstruction. After E.J.J. continued to reopen the solid door, an officer put him under arrest for obstruction of a law enforcement officer. E.J.J. challenged the obstruction statute as unconstitutional as applied to his behavior. "While E.J.J. 's words may have been disrespectful, discourteous, and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected." The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. View "Washington v. E.J.J." on Justia Law