September 23, 2017

Colorado Supreme Court: Unlawful Sexual Contact is Lesser Included Offense of Sexual Assault

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Page v. People on Monday, September 11, 2017.

Double Jeopardy—Lesser Included Offenses.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether unlawful sexual contact is a lesser included offense of sexual assault. Because establishing the elements of sexual assault by means of penetration necessarily establishes the elements of unlawful sexual contact, the Court concluded that unlawful sexual contact is a lesser included offense of sexual assault. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case with instructions to vacate defendant’s conviction for unlawful sexual contact.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Sexually Violent Predator Designation Can Be Challenged in Crim. P. 35 Motion

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Baker on Thursday, July 27, 2017.

Sexually Violent Predator Designation—Illegal Sentence—Correction—Crim. P. 35—Timeliness.

Baker pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and was designated a sexually violent predator (SVP). He was sentenced in 2012. Baker’s counsel did not file an objection to the SVP designation and Baker did not file a direct appeal challenging any aspect of the judgment, including the SVP designation. About a year later, Baker’s counsel filed a Crim. P. 35(b) motion to reconsider Baker’s sentence, which was denied. In 2015, Baker filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that he was entitled to an additional 19 days of presentence confinement credit (PSCC). The prosecution conceded that Baker was entitled to an additional 18 days of PSCC and the court issued an amended mittimus that included the additional 18 days. In early 2016, defendant filed a motion to vacate his SVP status. The prosecution argued that the court could not reconsider the SVP designation under Crim. P. 35(b) because it is not part of a criminal sentence. The motion was denied.

On appeal, Baker contended that his 2016 motion to vacate his SVP status was cognizable under Crim. P. 35.  It was not cognizable under 35(a) or (b) because an SVP designation is not part of a criminal sentence. However, it was cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c), because Crim. P. 35(c) allows a collateral attack on a conviction or sentence and also on any part of the judgment in a criminal case. A criminal “judgment” includes “findings” made by the district court and any statement that the defendant is required to register as a sex offender. An SVP designation is a finding and part of a criminal “judgment” under Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(VI). And Baker’s postconviction motion can be properly characterized as a collateral attack on the SVP designation. Although Baker did not file a direct appeal challenging his SVP designation, under Crim. P. 35(2)(c) he is not foreclosed from challenging the designation in a postconviction proceeding. Further, Baker’s motion was not time barred because the three-year deadline for collaterally attacking the original judgment of conviction pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c) is renewed when an illegal sentence is corrected pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a), which was done in Baker’s case in 2015. Therefore, the district court erred by denying Baker’s postconviction motion without considering whether the motion was cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c).

The order was reversed and the case was remanded for the district court to reconsider Baker’s SVP designation.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Within-Guidelines Sentence Presumably Reasonable Even if it Contains Serious Flaws

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Wireman on February 28, 2017.

The issue in this case was whether the Defendant’s sentence was procedurally reasonable when the district court failed to address Defendant’s non-frivolous arguments for a downward variance from his within-Guidelines sentence.

Defendant pled guilty to five counts of distributing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. Defendant had also emailed a friend non-pornographic images of children that he personally knew and claimed at the time he had sexually abused. Defendant had prior sexual offenses that involved children, including being convicted of five different sexually based crimes involving minors, four of which included physical sexual conduct with a minor.

Section 2G2.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), set Defendant’s base level offense for his crimes and applied several other Specific Offense Characteristics (SOCs) under § 2G2.2 to Defendant, which increased his offense level. These SOCs included increases because (i) the material involved prepubescent minors; (i) he distributed material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor; (iii) the material involved sadistic or violent depictions; (iv) he engaged in a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; and (v) because he used a computer to distribute the material. The corresponding USSG range for Defendant’s crimes and the added SOCs was 210-262 months’ imprisonment.

In his sentencing memorandum to the district court, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a downward variance from the USSG range because § 2G2.2 was inherently flawed. Defendant argued that the Sentencing Commission did not depend on empirical data when drafting § 2G2.2, that the range for his crimes was “harsher than necessary,” and that the SOCs in § 2G2.2 were utilized so often that they applied in nearly ever child-pornography case and therefore fail to distinguish between various offenders. The district court never specifically mentioned this memorandum at sentencing, but alluded to it.

The district court ultimately sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of 240 months’ imprisonment on each of the six counts against him. The district court addressed the personal nature of the non-pornographic images the Defendant emailed to his friend as well as Defendant’s prior criminal history. After handing down the sentence, the district court asked Defendant if they had “anything further,” to which Defendant’s counsel stated that they did not.

On appeal, Defendant claimed that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not adequately address his critiques of § 2G2.2. Because Defendant did not contemporaneously object in the district court to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence, including that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed, the Tenth Circuit applied the plain error standard of review, rather than de novo review. The Tenth Circuit explained that it finds plain error only when there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

The Tenth Circuit first addressed the first prong of the plain error standard, whether the district court committed error. The Tenth Circuit first noted that a district court must explain its reasons for rejecting a defendant’s non-frivolous argument for a more lenient sentence. Further, the Tenth Circuit held that Defendant’s critiques of § 2G2.2 were non-frivolous. In fact, the Tenth Circuit addressed how many of its sister circuit courts, along with itself, have described arguments criticizing § 2G2.2 as “quite forceful.”

However, the Tenth Circuit stated the principle that whether a district court can functionally reject or instead must explicitly reject a defendant’s arguments depends on whether the sentence imposed is within or outside of the USSG range. If the sentence is varied upwards of the USSG range, the district court must specifically address and reject the defendant’s arguments for a more lenient sentence. If it is within the USSG range, then the district court does not need to specifically address and reject each of the defendant’s arguments, so long as the court somehow indicates that it did not rest on the guidelines alone, but considered whether the USSG sentence actually conforms in the circumstances to the statutory factors.

In the Tenth Circuit, a within-guideline range sentence by the district court is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness on appeal. The Tenth Circuit stated that this was true even if the USSG at issue arguable contains serious flaws or lacks an empirical basis.

In this case, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court was at least aware of Defendant’s arguments because the district court explicitly referenced Defendant’s sentencing memorandum at the sentencing hearing. Because the district court’s ultimate sentence was within the USSG range, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not need to explicitly reject Defendant’s arguments. The district court needed only to indicate that it did not rest on the guidelines alone, which the district court did. The district court stated that it relied on the USSG as well as Defendant’s extensive criminal history and the personal nature of the emailed images in determining Defendant’s sentence. The Tenth Circuit held that this acted as a functional rejection of Defendant’s policy disagreement with § 2G2.2. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err by not explicitly responding to Defendant’s arguments for a more lenient sentence. Because the district court did not err, the Tenth Circuit did not address the three remaining prongs of the plain error review.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence of Defendant.

Tenth Circuit Judge McKay wrote a concurrence to this decision. Judge McKay expressed his view that precedence requires a district court rejecting a defendant’s non-frivolous arguments to provide at least a general statement of its reasons for rejecting such arguments. If the defendant’s arguments are that the USSG reflect an unsound judgment, Judge McKay states that the sentencing judge should go further to explain why he rejected those arguments. Here, the district court did not do as much.

Further, Judge McKay questioned the wisdom of applying the “reasonable” presumption to within-Guidelines sentences, regardless of a particular Guideline’s alleged lack of empirical support. The Sentencing Commission did not use an empirical approach when developing § 2G2.2, and therefore Judge McKay believes that the Tenth Circuit should not presume the sentence’s reasonableness. Regardless, he agrees that the Majority followed the rules of the Tenth Circuit in applying the “reasonable” presumption as it stands.

Judge McKay believed that the district court erred, but he concurred in judgment because the Defendant still could not satisfy the requirement that the error affected his substantial rights. There was nothing on the record to suggest that the district court would have imposed a different sentence even if he explicitly considered Defendant’s arguments.

Tenth Circuit: Jury Instructions Sufficient to Apprise Jury of Elements of Crime

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Wright on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.

Bruce Carlton Wright was convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1344, and on eleven counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Wright was sentenced to thirty-three months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution to the bank involved. Wright appealed, claiming the district court erred by: (1) not including intent to defraud as an element of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in the jury instruction; (2) responding to a written question from the jury by directing the jury to consider each count of the indictment separately; (3) denying Wright’s motion for new trial based on a Brady violation; (4) improperly calculating of the bank’s loss amount under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1); and (5) improperly calculating of the restitution amount.

Because Wright did not properly object during his original trial in relation to his first, second, fourth, and fifth claims on appeal, the court reviewed them under the plain-error standard, which requires a plaintiff to establish an “error, that is plain, which affects substantial rights, and seriously effects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” The court stated that a plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable probability that, if the error had not occurred, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Concerning Wright’s first claim, that the court erred by not including the necessary element of intent to defraud to convict on a charge of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in the jury instruction, the court reviewed the jury instructions in light of the context of the entire trial to see if the instructions accurately stated the law and provided the jury with a correct understanding of the facts of the case. The court rejected this claim, saying that Wright could not show error because, while the court did not list intent to defraud in the instruction, the omission was cured because the instruction relating to committing bank fraud did incorporate “intent to defraud” by requiring an agreement to commit bank fraud.

During deliberations, the jury asked the judge if it they had to find Wright guilty on count 1 in order to convict him on any of the subsequent counts. Over objection of counsel, who agreed with the legal answer provided by the court but requested different phrasing, the judge responded, “No, you must consider each count separately.” On appeal, Wright contends that the answer should have been “Yes,” because, citing Pinkerton v. United States, the conviction would have been based on the acts of a co-conspirator and not his own acts (as his co-conspirator was testifying at his trial). The court stated that Wright had waived his ability to assert error under Pinkerton by failing to object on that basis at the district court level.  Instead, because Wright had generally objected to the instruction, the court reviews for plain error. However, because Wright argued under an abuse of discretion, and not plain error he waived his right to argue the claim.

In support for his motion for new trial, Wright argued that the government withheld a victim impact statement that the bank president had prepared for his coconspirator’s sentencing. Wright claimed that the information would have helped him to impeach his co-conspirator at his own trial. In their assessment of Wright’s motion, the court stated that Wright would have to show the prosecution suppressed material evidence that was favorable to Wright.  While the court determined the statement was not given to Wright prior to the trial, and that it was favorable to him, he failed in showing that the information included in the impact statement was material enough that it could have undermined confidence in the outcome of the case because Wright already attacked his co-conspirator’s credibility extensively at trial.

In calculating Wright’s sentence and amount of restitution he would be required to pay to the victims, the district court looked to the amount of Wright’s fraudulent draw requests, and determined he owed to be $1,094, 490. Wright was provided the sum in the presentencing report, which he accepted. Because the Bank recovered sums due to its sale, the sales price should be subtracted from the outstanding loan balance to calculate restitution to avoid a windfall to the victim. However, because the amount of restitution and sentence is a factual question, Wright was required to object at the district court level for it to rise to the level of a plain error reviewable on appeal. Wright accepted the amount in the pre-sentencing report, and the court held that Wright had accepted the calculation of restitution and his sentence as correct.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s rejection of Wright’s motion for new trial and rejected Wright’s other claims as to the amount and length of his sentence.

Tenth Circuit: 18 U.S.C. § 3583 Allows Sentences Greater than One Year for Violations of Terms of Supervised Release

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Collins on Tuesday, February 14, 2017.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had to determine if the maximum allowable term of incarceration following a second violation of the terms of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) refers to the original crime or the violation of the terms of the supervised release. Howard Collins was originally convicted of a Class B felony for knowingly and intentionally distributing more than five grams of (in this case) crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii). After his initial period of incarceration, he was granted supervised release. After violating his supervised release once before, upon his second violation of the terms of his release, the court sentenced him to one-year re-incarceration under the belief that § 3583(e)(3) permitted a one-year maximum term.

Section 3583(e)(3) stipulates the maximum allowable period of re-incarceration where supervised release has been revoked is the length of the supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the supervised release. On appeal, the government asserted that the district court improperly read the statute to preclude a re-incarceration period over one year. The government argued that the language of the statute relating to the “offense that resulted in such term of supervised release” referred to the original offense for which Collins was convicted (which would allow for a three year maximum), not the violation of his supervised release. In interpreting the statute, the court noted that revocation of supervised release, while often leading to incarceration, is not in and of itself a crime and is only subject to a preponderance of the evidence standard. As incarceration for a criminal offense under a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt would be a violation of the Due Process Clause, the court reasoned that the “offense” referenced in the statute was the original offense for which Collins was charged.

Looking to the holding in the Supreme Court case of Kellogg Brown & Root Servs. Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, the court stated that the interpretation of the term “offense” to be the original offense for which someone was convicted is applicable to the entirety of Title 18, (at issue here). At the outset, Collins argues that the court’s interpretation of the term original must, in his case, relate to his violation of the terms of supervised release because the phrase “resulted in” requires actual causation, and “but for” his first violation of supervised release he would no longer be on a term of supervised release to violate. The court rejects this contention, stating that Collins’ reading of the statute and the holding in Burrage v. United States to require actual and proximate cause, if adopted, would require the court to to over look the aforementioned due process issues. Furthermore, the court states that ‘but-for’ his original conviction, he could not have been sentenced to a term of supervised release upon either revocation.

In further opposition to the court’s interpretation, Collins supports his own interpretation by asserting that the statutory history of § 3583(e)(3) and (h), including its cross-reference to § 3553(a)(1) leads to an interpretation that the term ‘offense’ means violation of his supervised release. The court, again citing Kellogg to reject Collins’ interpretation, said that because the term ‘offense’ under Title 18 has been interpreted to mean the original offense for which he was convicted, the cross-reference to § 3553 (a)(1) would also carry that interpretation. In Collins’ final challenge to the court’s interpretation, he asserted that because prior to a 1994 amendment the statute referred to “the offense for which the person was convicted” (emphasis added), as opposed to the current iteration that replaced ‘convicted’ with ‘offense’, Congress specifically intended to include violations of the terms of statutory release. The court also rejected these arguments under Kellogg, stating that because Title 18 refers to crimes as the original ‘offense’, the term must be given the same meaning throughout the statutory scheme. Furthermore, the court added, the amendment worked to actually expand the sentencing court’s authority, and an interpretation that limited the court’s ability to sentence a term of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release would be inconsistent with that intention.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the sentencing order of one-year, and remanded the case with the instruction that the court vacate its revocation judgment and resentence Collins.

Tenth Circuit: Sentencing Enhancement Properly Applied When Defendant Conceded to Crime of Violence

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States vSnyder on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

Mr. Snyder pleaded guilty to possession of firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) while on probation. The probation officer recommended a base offense level of 20 pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 4B1.2(a)(2), because Mr. Snyder had a prior conviction of a crime of violence. Mr. Snyder sought a reduction to the base offense level pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2). The district court held that Mr. Snyder’s prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter was a crime of violence and he was not entitled to a reduced sentence. Mr. Snyder appealed.

The Tenth Circuit ordered supplemental brief to determine whether the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) provided a basis for Mr. Snyder’s sentencing enhancement if his prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter was a crime of violence. Mr. Snyder’s supplement brief conceded that his prior conviction was a crime of violence. Further, the Supreme Court reasoned in Beckles “the advisory Guidelines do not fix the permissible range of sentences. To the contrary, they merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence with the statutory range.”

The court concluded that the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement and affirmed Mr. Snyder’s sentence.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Remand Granted for Extended Proportionality Review

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Oldright on Thursday, June 29, 2017.

First Degree AssaultAbbreviated Proportionality ReviewHabitual CriminalPrior ConvictionsExtended Proportionality Review.

A jury convicted Oldright of first degree assault based on evidence that he hit the victim in the head with a metal rod. Following trial, the court conducted an abbreviated proportionality review, adjudicated Oldright a habitual criminal, and sentenced him to 64 years in prison. Oldright’s prior offenses included aggravated driving after revocation prohibited, forgery, fraud by check, theft by receiving, and theft.

On appeal, Oldright contended that the court erred in finding that the triggering offense was grave or serious. Oldright’s triggering offense, first degree assault, is a grave and serious offense because the legislature deems it a crime of violence and an extraordinary risk crime, Oldright used a deadly weapon to commit the crime, and the victim suffered serious bodily injury.

Oldright also argued that the court erred in concluding that all of his prior convictions were serious simply because they were felonies. Although first degree assault is a grave and serious offense, not all of Oldright’s prior offenses were serious because the General Assembly had reclassified three his prior felony convictions as misdemeanors (making them an ineligible basis for habitual sentencing), and one of the prior felonies from a class 4 felony to a class 5 felony. Because the court failed to consider these legislative changes in determining whether Oldright’s sentence was disproportionate, the sentence was vacated and the case was remanded for an extended proportionality review of Oldright’s habitual criminal sentence.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Statutory Continuous Sentence Requirement Applies to Both Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections v. Fetzer on Monday, June 26, 2017.

Parole Eligibility.

The Department of Corrections petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing an order of the district court that denied Fetzer’s petition pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2). Fetzer’s petition sought an order compelling the recalculation of his parole eligibility date, asserting that the Department’s “governing sentence” method, which calculated his parole eligibility date solely on the basis of the longest of his concurrent sentences, violated the statutory requirement that his multiple sentences be treated as one continuous sentence. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for recalculation, reasoning both that, contrary to the Department’s understanding, the statutory continuous sentence requirement applies to concurrent as well as consecutive sentences and that the Department’s “governing sentence” method of calculation could not apply to Fetzer’s sentences because they were all subject to the same statutory parole provisions.

The supreme court held that, because the “governing sentence” theories that have previously been sanctioned by this court have served to determine the statutory parole and discharge provisions applicable to a single continuous sentence and the manner in which those provisions can be meaningfully applied to it, rather than as an alternative to the statutory continuous sentence requirement itself, the Department erred in simply substituting Fetzer’s longest sentence for the required continuous sentence. Because, however, Fetzer’s multiple sentences are not all subject to the same statutory parole provisions, as indicated in the court of appeals’ opinion, reference to a governing sentence, or some comparable means of determining the applicable incidents of his parole, may remain necessary to the calculation of Fetzer’s parole eligibility date. The judgment of the court of appeals reversing the district court’s order was therefore affirmed. Its remand order, directing the Department to recalculate Fetzer’s parole eligibility date in accordance with its opinion, however, was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions that it be returned to the district court for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Aggregate Sentences Amounting to Life for Juvenile Not Unconstitutional

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lucero v. People on Monday, May 22, 2017.

Life without Parole—Juveniles—Eighth Amendment—Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and 35(c).

The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed on juvenile defendants convicted of multiple offenses. Graham holds that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile non-homicide offender. Miller bars mandatory life without parole for any juvenile offender. Because life without parole is a specific sentence imposed for a single offense, the court held that Graham and Miller do not apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed for multiple offenses. The court thus held that Graham and Miller do not apply to Lucero’s aggregate term-of-years sentence. The court also considered whether the court of appeals erred by treating Lucero’s Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction as a Rule 35(c) motion challenging the constitutionality of his sentence. Because a court may properly characterize a mischaracterized issue, and Lucero argued that his sentence must be reduced under Graham to meet constitutional standards, the court held that the court of appeals did not err. Accordingly, the supreme court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Aggregate Term-of-Years Sentences for Juvenile Held Constitutional

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Rainer on Monday, May 22, 2017.

Life without Parole—Juveniles—Eighth Amendment.

The supreme court considered whether Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed on juvenile defendants convicted of multiple offenses. For reasons discussed at length in the lead companion case, Lucero v. People, 2017 CO 49, __ P.3d __, announced the same day, the court held that Graham and Miller do not apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed for multiple offenses. The court therefore held that Graham and Miller do not apply to Rainer’s aggregate term-of-years sentence. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Graham and Miller Do Not Apply to Aggregate Term-of-Years Sentences

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Armstrong v. People on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

Life without parole—Juveniles—Eighth Amendment.

The supreme court considered whether Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed on juvenile defendants convicted of multiple offenses. For reasons discussed at length in the lead companion case, Lucero v. People, 2017 CO 49, __ P.3d __, announced the same day, the court held that Graham and Miller do not apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed for multiple offenses. The court therefore held that Graham and Miller do not apply to Armstrong’s aggregate term-of-years sentence. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: No Constitutional Violation for Juvenile’s Aggregate Term-of-Years Sentence for Multiple Violations

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada-Huerta v. People on Monday, May 22, 2017.

Life without parole—Juveniles—Eighth Amendment.

The supreme court considered whether Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed on juvenile defendants convicted of multiple offenses. For reasons discussed at length in the lead companion case, Lucero v. People, 2017 CO 49, __ P.3d __, announced the same day, the court held that Graham and Miller do not apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences imposed for multiple offenses. The Court therefore held that Graham and Miller do not apply to Estrada-Huerta’s aggregate term-of-years sentence. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.