DeMola v. Cavazos

Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on behalf of Natalie DeMola, who was convicted of first degree murder for a crime she committed as a juvenile and for which she received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Our brief argued that this mandatory statutory sentencing scheme is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which banned mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles. Specifically, we argued that Miller reaffirms the Supreme Court’s repeated recognition of the fact that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments, and that accordingly, sentences imposed on juveniles must provide a meaningful opportunity for release (as required by Graham). Miller emphasized the importance of an individualized sentencing determination, including consideration of each defendant’s upbringing and participation level in the offense, which is (unconstitutionally) precluded by any sentence that is mandatorily imposed. Finally, we argued that the scope and extent of the holding in Miller is a critical national issue and requires thorough briefing and consideration by the Ninth Circuit on remand. In light of these facts, we argued that DeMola’s case should be given a panel rehearing or, in the alternative, rehearing en banc, to determine whether her sentence violates Miller.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit further amended their original opinion to clarify that Ms. DeMola’s sentence did not violate Miller “[b]ecause the sentencing judge did consider both mitigating and aggravating factors under a sentencing scheme that affords discretion and leniency.”