In 2009, Texas outlawed theuse of life without parole sentences for juveniles, but the law was not retroactive. Twenty people sentenced to LWOP as juveniles remain sentenced to life without parole.  In mid-November , a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that sentencing juvenile murderers to life in prison without any chance of parole is not unreasonably harsh. The ruling will only apply to the 20 people serving JLWOP.  For more information, please read: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/life-without-parole-ok-for-juveniles-texas-court-1055321.html

On January 2, 2011, out-going Governor Schwarzenegger commuted Sara Kruzan’s juvenile life without parole sentence to 25 years-to-life in prison. Sara was 16 years old when she shot the man who started sexually abusing her when she was 11 and pushed her into prostitution at age 13. For killing him, Sara was sentenced to LWOP plus four years. She is now in her 30s. A commutation is rare, and in this case it was accomplished with the expertise of a pro bono team of attorneys and with the help of many people who rallied to speak out against the crime of Sara’s sentence. The new sentence falls short of true justice, however: every youth deserves the right to earn parole. Sara’s circumstances should have resulted her release. To hear Sara discuss her life, look for the short video on the left-hand side of this home page.

The Wall Street Journal carried this article on 10/29/10, discussing cases relying on the US Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida.

Judges Forced to Revisit Juveniles’ Life Sentences

By NATHAN KOPPEL

Judges are grappling with whether it is ever proper to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole in light of a Supreme Court decision that such a punishment for non-murderers is cruel and unusual.

Jim Rider/South Bend Tribune

Dakotah Eliason, 15, was sentenced to life without parole Monday in a Michigan court.

In its May ruling, the Supreme Court reasoned juveniles are less culpable than adults for their crimes because they are less able to control their behavior, and they have a better chance of being rehabilitated.

“A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority in Graham v. Florida.

Since the decision, state courts have been reducing the sentences of prisoners covered by the ruling. An Iowa judge last month decided that Jason Means, 34 years old, who was serving life without parole for a kidnapping committed when he was 17, was eligible for parole.

Approximately 150 inmates are automatically eligible for lighter sentences, according to attorneys. But the impact could be broader still as the ruling has emboldened attorneys nationwide to push for shorter sentences for juveniles serving life sentences for murders, a larger inmate population.

Roughly 2,500 inmates are serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles, according to one 2009 survey by Human Rights Watch, which opposes such sentences. Forty-four states allow life without parole for juvenile offenders, generally defined as being under 18 when they committed their crimes, while six states bar such sentences. The vast majority were convicted for homicides, so they don’t automatically qualify for resentencing under Graham, according to attorneys.

Courtesy Eliahson Family

Dakotah Eliahson with his dog, whose death traumatized him.

For example, Joseph Ligon, 73, a Pennsylvania inmate who has been in prison about 57 years, is challenging the life-without-parole sentence he received for his role in two murders committed when he was 15. Mr. Ligon “has learned and grown,” said his attorney Bradley Bridge. “The child who went to prison in 1953 no longer exists.”

Mr. Ligon’s appeal is likely to be one of hundreds of cases testing the reach of the Supreme Court ruling. Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that contends that Graham should apply to the case of an inmate sentenced to life without parole for killing a police officer at the age of 15.

The Graham decision, which involved a juvenile sentenced to life without parole in connection with a burglary and attempted robbery committed at 16, continued the Supreme Court’s recent record of supporting leniency in sentencing young offenders. Five years ago, the court struck down capital punishment for juveniles.

Prosecutors say a relatively small number of juveniles receive life without parole, and there should be little leniency. “There are millions of young kids who do not commit outrageous crimes,” said Scott Burns, the head of the National District Attorneys Association. “To say we can excuse a small percentage who do just because their frontal lobe hasn’t developed is not persuasive.”

Defense lawyers and juvenile-justice advocates, who plan to test the reach of the Supreme Court ruling in cases across the country, concede that it will be difficult to persuade judges to significantly reduce life sentences in non-homicide cases, let alone to offer sentencing relief in murder cases.

Indeed, courts in Alabama and Missouri have already declined to extend the Supreme Court ruling to murder cases involving juveniles.

On Monday, a state judge in Michigan handed down a life-without-parole sentence to Dakotah Eliason, 15, who was convicted of murdering his step-grandfather earlier this year. The defendant, who was 14 at the time of the murder, had suffered recent traumas, including the deaths of his cousin, friend and dog, according to his lawyer, Lanny Fisher.

“He never got in trouble [before],” said Mr. Fisher, who argued that his client’s sentence was unconstitutional in light of Graham. “On the night this happened, he had a lot of pent-up emotion.”

Prosecutor Arthur Cotter said he did not take lightly the prospect of sending such a young person to prison for life, but the defendant, he said, “is a dangerous, dangerous young man, and he should not get out for the good of the community.”

“Judges will fear that if they let someone out, he may commit another crime,” said Bryan Gowdy, one of the winning lawyers in Graham. “But judges need to respect the constitutional right of juvenile offenders to have a meaningful opportunity at being released from prison.”  

Link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303443904575578444151929822.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

In an exciting development, a California Court of Appeal found a life with the possiblity of parole sentence unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment for a 16-year-old.  Victor Mendez did not commit a homicide or inflict bodily injury but was sentenced to 84-years- to-life in prison, a sentence that meant he would have no real opportunity for release.  Relying on the recent US Supreme Court Case, Graham v. Florida, the California court found that the lengthy sentence did not give him  “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”  To read the Mendez case click here:  People vs. Mendez. To read the US Supreme Court case that found life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles who commit non-homicide crimes, click here: Graham v. Florida.

Sara Kruzan is one of many youth sentenced to life without parole across the US who have grown into mature, responsible adults and should have the chance to work toward release. In California and 38 other jurisdictions in the US, there is no chance for individuals like Sara to earn release.  Sara, who was just two months past her 16th birthday when she shot the 36-year-old pimp who had raped and abused her, has filed a clemency petition asking California Gov. Schwarzenegger to commute her life without parole sentence to time served. Now 32, Sara has spent half her life in prison, where she is a model prisoner and working toward a college degree. A petition for clemency is very difficult to win, and only granted in rare cases. To write a letter in support of Sara’s petition, click here.  Look on the home page of this website to watch a video of an interview with Sara.

Great article chronicling the effort of a mother to ensure her son gets the education he needs…and deserves.  She’s an inspiration to us all, as are the groups and individuals who worked with her: The Youth law Center, Chaplain Javier Stauring, and the Disability Rights Legal Center.  Click here to read,  “With Son Behind Bars, A Mother Wages Battle for his Education.”

The broad, diverse, and hard-working coalition of supporters  that came together around SB399 will not let this struggle die. We’re meeting and mapping out next steps. Send your ideas into ecalvin@hrw.org. Keep checking back at this website for more information.

Don’t let those who oppose be the only ones that Assembly Members hear from about SB 399.  You can take one important step right now towards future success of fair sentencing for youth:  Let those Assembly Members who voted yes know you appreciate their leadership. Tell those who did not vote for the bill that you expect different vote the next time. Go to the “Take Action” page for instructions.

The California State Assembly defeated SB 399, just two votes shy of what was needed for passage. There’s no question that our coalition is deeply disappointed that California failed to stop this human rights violation. Nevertheless, it is clear that while we were working for this bill, something else happened. Perspectives have changed, and there is support building for changing how California treats young people. Literally thousands of individuals called and wrote letters in support of SB 399. Hundreds of people met with their representatives. A diverse collection of over 100 organizations supported the bill, while dozens of churches and other groups held events to push for its passage. We’re looking forward to the next steps, and hope you will join us. Right now, please go to the “Take Action” page and see what you can do.

On Tuesday, the Assembly took a first vote on SB 399.  It did not pass. On Wednesday August 25th, we hope that there will be a new vote on the bill. Click “more” to see how your rep voted.  There is still time to tell your representatives what you think.  Did he or she vote yes? Call and say thank you, or write a thank you note. Did he or she not vote? Call Wednesday before 10:00 and urge a yes vote. If your representative voted no, let him or her know what you think.