State v. Davilla

Under Miller, when a juvenile faces a de facto life sentence, the sentencer is required to “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479–80 (2012). Failure to do so violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction following his most recent resentencing.  Defendant assigned error to the sentencing court’s imposition of a 600-month term of incarceration upon a juvenile. On appeal, Defendant asserted that his sentence should be reversed because Oregon appellate courts have adopted the principles of “transient immaturity and rehabilitation” stressed by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, stating that he is “precisely the type of juvenile offender envisioned” by Miller.  Defendant further contended that his 600-month sentence violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Under Miller, courts may sentence juvenile homicide offenders to life without parole, but only after taking into consideration “how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 479–80.  The Court held that because it does not appear that the sentencing court took the Miller principles into account in reaching its decision to impose a de facto life sentence upon a juvenile offender, Defendant’s 600-month sentence is an Eighth Amendment violation.  Reversed and remanded for resentencing.