Tyrone Aiken, Matthew Clark, Eric Graham, Bradford M. Haigler, Angelo Ham, J’corey S. Hull-Kilgore, Damian Inman…

Summary

The court held that the rule requiring individualized consideration before imposing life without parole on a juvenile applies retroactively and extends to discretionary as well as mandatory life-without-parole sentences. Because the petitioners' prior sentencing hearings did not adequately examine the constitutional significance of youth, the court granted relief and authorized resentencing for them and similarly situated juvenile offenders. Chief Justice Toal, dissenting, would have denied relief because the sentences were discretionary and the sentencing courts had authority to consider mitigating evidence.