US v. Briones, Jr., No. 16-10150 (5-16-18)(Rawlinson
w/Ezra; dissent by O'Scannlain)(Note: Az FPD represents a juvenile co-defendant
on a similar Miller claim).
The 9th affirms a life
sentence for a felony murder committed by the defendant when he was days shy of
his 18th birthday. The murder was of a
Subway clerk; it was calculated and cold blooded; and it was part of gang
activity. Yet, since the defendant was
sentenced to life in 1997 (after turning down a plea), the defendant has
changed. He has matured, received no
write ups (!), and is different now then when he was a juvenile. Miller
v. Alabama, 567 US 460 (2012), gave him a second chance.
At resentencing, the
district court still imposed life. The
court calculated the guidelines (life), and noted the evidence presented,
including the dysfunctional childhood, difficulties on the Reservation, gang
culture, his child and wife, the fact he was not the triggerman, and, although
disputed, his remorse and regret. The majority found this weighing was
sufficient for consideration of the "hallmark features" of youth
before sentencing. The 9th found a
sufficient basis for supporting the life sentence. In affirming, the 9th deferred heavily to the
district court.
Dissenting, O'Scannlain argues that the
district court erred because it failed to satisfactorily explain the basis for
its sentence so as to provide review.
The defendant argued that, under Miller,
the court had to specifically consider whether the defendant, then juvenile,
fell into a class of permanently incorrigible juvenile offenders. Life
sentences are appropriate for juvenile offenders only in the most uncommon or
extraordinary of cases. A judge, to
impose a life sentence on a juvenile, must explain why the defendant fell into
this group. The court needs to compare and contrast how the offender was then
and now, the magnitude of the offense, and other 3553 factors. There are no magic words or phrases, or
special new hurdles; what is required is that the court provide an adequate explanation
of its sentence. This was lacking here.
The court did not address the arguments the defendant made. The dissent would
remand for resentencing.
The decision is here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/05/16/16-10150.pdf
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home