Jones v. Mississippi

Summary

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, held that for a defendant who committed a homicide while under 18, Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana require only a discretionary sentencing procedure in which the sentencer may impose a lesser punishment after considering the offender's youth; they do not require a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility, nor an on-the-record sentencing explanation implying one. Because Jones's Mississippi resentencing gave the judge exactly that discretion, the Court affirmed the Mississippi Court of Appeals' judgment upholding his life-without-parole sentence, while stressing that it took no position on the sentence's appropriateness, left intact Miller's ban on mandatory juvenile LWOP and Montgomery's retroactivity holding, and noted that States remain free to impose stricter limits. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but urged outright repudiation of Montgomery as irreconcilable with Miller and the Constitution, while Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan, dissented on the ground that the decision guts Miller and Montgomery by reducing them to mere procedural discretion without the special justification stare decisis demands.