Graham v. Florida
560 U.S. ____ (2010) (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments forbids the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime.
Facts:
- Terrance Jamar Graham had a troubled childhood with parents addicted to crack cocaine.
- In July 2003, at age 16, Graham and three accomplices attempted to rob a barbeque restaurant.
- During the robbery attempt, one of Graham's accomplices struck the restaurant manager in the head with a metal bar, causing an injury that required stitches.
- Graham was placed on probation for this crime.
- Less than six months later, while still on probation and 34 days shy of his 18th birthday, Graham and two accomplices committed a home invasion robbery.
- During the home invasion, Graham and his accomplices held the homeowner and another man at gunpoint for approximately 30 minutes while they ransacked the home.
- Later that same night, Graham and his accomplices attempted a second robbery, during which an accomplice was shot.
- Graham fled from police at high speed, crashed his car, and was apprehended on foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Florida prosecutors charged Graham as an adult for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery committed at age 16.
- Graham pleaded guilty, and the trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced him to three years of probation.
- Following Graham's arrest for subsequent crimes, his probation officer filed an affidavit alleging probation violations.
- The Florida trial court found Graham had violated his probation.
- The trial court then adjudicated Graham guilty of the original charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the armed burglary, a sentence that under Florida law carried no possibility of parole.
- Graham appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, arguing the sentence was cruel and unusual, but the court affirmed the sentence.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause permit a state to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. The Eighth Amendment forbids the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide. The Court applied its categorical analysis framework, first finding a national consensus against this sentencing practice based on its actual rarity, despite being statutorily permitted in many states. Exercising its independent judgment, the Court concluded that juvenile offenders who commit nonhomicide crimes have a 'twice diminished moral culpability' due to both their youth (as established in Roper v. Simmons) and the nature of their offense (as established in Kennedy v. Louisiana). The Court reasoned that the legitimate penological goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are not adequately served by sentencing a juvenile nonhomicide offender to die in prison, as it forecloses any opportunity to demonstrate maturity and reform. A categorical rule is necessary because a case-by-case approach would not allow courts to reliably distinguish the rare, irredeemably corrupt juvenile from the vast majority who have the capacity for change.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
No. While agreeing that Graham's sentence is unconstitutional, a broad categorical rule is unnecessary and unwise. The case should be decided using the Court's established case-by-case 'gross disproportionality' test for noncapital sentences. Applying this test, Graham's sentence is grossly disproportionate when considering his youth, the specific facts of his crimes, and the extreme harshness of a life sentence without parole. This narrower approach would invalidate Graham's sentence without foreclosing the possibility that a life-without-parole sentence might be constitutionally permissible for a juvenile who commits a different, more heinous nonhomicide crime.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. The Eighth Amendment does not contain a proportionality guarantee for prison sentences; its original meaning only prohibits torturous methods of punishment. The Court oversteps its authority by substituting its own moral judgment for that of legislatures. There is no national consensus against this practice; in fact, a supermajority of states and the federal government authorize it. The Court's decision to extend its 'death is different' categorical analysis to a noncapital sentence erodes a critical line in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and opens the door for judicial invalidation of any legislatively-approved sentence.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant expansion of the Eighth Amendment's categorical prohibitions beyond the death penalty context. For the first time, the Court applied its 'evolving standards of decency' framework to establish a categorical rule against a specific term-of-years sentence for a class of offenders. By creating this bright-line rule, the Court effectively extended the reasoning of Roper v. Simmons (barring the juvenile death penalty) to life without parole, cementing the principle that juveniles have diminished culpability. The ruling required states to resentence numerous inmates and potentially reform their sentencing and parole systems to provide juvenile nonhomicide offenders with a 'meaningful opportunity' for release.
Unlock the full brief for Graham v. Florida