Graham v. Florida

Supreme Court of the United States
560 U.S. ____ (2010); modified July 6, 2010 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime.

Facts:

In July 2003, at age 16, Terrance Jamar Graham and three accomplices attempted to rob a restaurant in Jacksonville, Florida.
During the robbery attempt, one of Graham's masked accomplices struck the restaurant manager twice in the head with a metal bar, causing an injury that required stitches.
No money was taken during the robbery attempt.
After serving part of his initial sentence and being released, Graham was arrested again less than six months later, in December 2004, when he was 34 days short of his 18th birthday.
The new arrest stemmed from Graham's participation in a home invasion robbery where he and two accomplices held a man at gunpoint while they ransacked the home.
Later that same evening, Graham and his accomplices attempted a second robbery, during which one accomplice was shot.
While attempting to flee from police in his father's car, Graham crashed into a telephone pole and was apprehended.

Procedural Posture:

Terrance Graham was charged as an adult in Florida state court for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery.
Graham entered a guilty plea, and the trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced him to three years of probation.
Subsequently, Graham's probation officer filed an affidavit alleging Graham violated his probation by committing new crimes.
Following a hearing, the trial court found that Graham had violated the terms of his probation.
The trial court then adjudicated Graham guilty of the original charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the armed burglary and a concurrent 15-year term for the attempted robbery.
Graham's post-sentencing motion challenging the sentence under the Eighth Amendment was deemed denied by the trial court.
The First District Court of Appeal of Florida, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the sentence.
The Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied discretionary review.
The U.S. 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 imposition of a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes, the imposition of a sentence of life in prison without parole on a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide crime violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court applies the categorical analysis used in its capital punishment jurisprudence, which considers national consensus and the Court's own independent judgment. Although a majority of states statutorily permit the sentence, actual sentencing practices show an overwhelming national consensus against it, as it is exceedingly rare. Exercising its independent judgment, the Court reasons that juveniles have diminished culpability due to their lack of maturity and underdeveloped character, as established in Roper v. Simmons. When combined with the fact that nonhomicide crimes are categorically less serious than homicide, a juvenile nonhomicide offender possesses a 'twice diminished moral culpability.' The severity of a life-without-parole sentence, which denies any hope for restoration, is disproportionate for such an offender, and standard penological justifications like retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation are inadequate. A categorical rule is necessary because a case-by-case approach risks erroneously sentencing juveniles who have the capacity for change to a lifetime in prison.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Agrees with the majority's conclusion and its use of the 'evolving standards of decency' framework. This concurrence emphasizes that Eighth Amendment jurisprudence must not be static, as society's understanding of punishments evolves over time with new knowledge and experience. It criticizes the dissent's rigid originalist approach, stating that proportionality review must adapt to ensure the moral commitment of the Eighth Amendment is not rendered obsolete.

Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts

Yes, in this specific case, Terrance Graham’s sentence is grossly disproportionate and violates the Eighth Amendment, but a broad categorical rule is unnecessary and unwise. Instead of creating a new categorical rule for noncapital cases, the Court should have applied the existing case-by-case 'narrow proportionality' review. Under that framework, Graham's sentence is excessive considering the gravity of his offenses, his diminished culpability due to his youth and immaturity (per Roper), and the fact that his sentence is far more severe than those imposed for similar or even more serious crimes in Florida and other jurisdictions. A categorical ban is inappropriate because some nonhomicide crimes committed by juveniles may be heinous enough to warrant a sentence of life without parole.

Dissenting - Justice Thomas

No, the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment was originally understood to forbid only torturous methods of punishment, not to require proportionality in sentencing. By applying categorical analysis to a noncapital sentence, the majority erodes the 'death is different' principle that has long distinguished the Court's capital jurisprudence. There is no national consensus against this sentence; in fact, there is a clear legislative consensus in its favor, as 37 states and the federal government authorize it. The rarity of its imposition demonstrates judicious use by judges and juries, not societal rejection. The Court usurps the role of legislatures by substituting its own moral and penological judgments for those of the people's elected representatives.

Dissenting - Justice Alito

Agrees with parts of Justice Thomas's dissent and makes two additional points. First, the Court's holding is narrow, forbidding only sentences of 'life without parole' and not affecting long term-of-years sentences that might functionally be equivalent. Second, the as-applied proportionality challenge addressed by the Chief Justice was not properly before the Court, as the petitioner only argued for a categorical rule in his petition for certiorari and merits briefs.

Analysis:

This landmark decision extends the categorical proportionality analysis, previously reserved for capital punishment, to a noncapital sentence for the first time, significantly altering Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. It solidifies the constitutional status of juveniles as a less culpable class of offenders, building directly on the reasoning of Roper v. Simmons. The ruling mandates that states provide juvenile nonhomicide offenders with a 'meaningful opportunity to obtain release,' compelling revisions to state sentencing and parole laws. By blurring the bright line between capital and noncapital cases, the decision opens the door to future categorical challenges to other severe term-of-years sentences.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Graham v. Florida (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"