that sentencing court must consider all mitigating circumstances “the attendant in the crime and life, including but not limited to his or juvenile’s her chronological age at the time of the crime, whether the juvenile offender was a direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor, and his or her physical and mental As discussed in Section 2, unless infra, development”). each of these factors dictates a finding that the juvenile is among the rare young offenders for whom life without parole is appropriate, a life without parole sentence cannot constitutionally be imposed. Because §190.5 of the California Penal Code flips this principle on its head, the statute is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller. Presumptive Juvenile Life Without California’s Parole Statute Contravenes Requirement Miller’s That Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences Be Uncommon While the Court banned only mandatory juvenile without Miller parole sentences, the Court found that all we have said in Roper, “given and [Miller] about children's diminished culpability and Graham, heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” 132 S. Ct. at 2469 (emphasis added). Quoting and Miller, Roper Graham, further noted that the offender whose crime reflects Miller “juvenile irreparable will be 132 S. Ct. at 2469. corruption” “rare.”
that “the sentencing court must consider all mitigating circumstances attendant in the juvenile’s crime and life, including but not limited to his or her chronological age at the time of the crime, whether the juvenile offender was a direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor, and his or her physical and mental development”). As discussed in Section 2, infra, unless each of these factors dictates a finding that the juvenile is among the rare young offenders for whom life without parole is appropriate, a life without parole sentence cannot constitutionally be imposed. Because §190.5 of the California Penal Code flips this principle on its head, the statute is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller. California’s Presumptive Juvenile Life Without Parole Statute Contravenes Miller’s Requirement That Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences Be Uncommon While the Miller Court banned only mandatory juvenile without parole sentences, the Court found that “given all we have said in Roper, Graham, and [Miller] about children's diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469 (emphasis added). Quoting Roper and Graham, Miller further noted that the “juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption” will be “rare.” 132 S. Ct. at 2469.