Argued that Nebraska’s mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is now unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles.
Argued that Pennsylvania’s mandatory sentencing scheme, which requires any juvenile convicted of first or second degree murder to be sentenced to life without parole, is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that Section (a)(4) of the Criminal History Records Information Act (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9123(a)(4)) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the extent that it permits expungements to be denied solely on the basis of the Commonwealth’s refusal to consent, even in the absence of any evidence proffered by the Commonwealth and when all other statutory criteria are met.
Argued that Petitioner's sentence is the equivalent of life without parole because Missouri law requires him to serve a minimum of 92 years before becoming parole-eligible. This sentence therefore violates the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life for non-homicide offenses without a meaningful and realistic opportunity for re-entry into society prior to the expiration of their sentence.
Argued that due process is violated when a judge uses his independent knowledge about a youth’s child welfare history and involvement, including past misconduct, as evidence to adjudicate the youth delinquent in the juvenile justice system.
Argued that J.B. should be released from detention pending his adjudicatory hearing in juvenile court because his unlawful detention violates Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act; challenged J.B.'s sentence as against the weight of the evidence.