Our brief argued that appellant, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile, is entitled to relief based on the second exception to the prohibition on filing a second or successive habeas petition, which allows a subsequent petition when it is premised on "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable."
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 a child who is wishes to file an appeal through counsel should have the right to do so, regardless of the position of any other party to the proceeding, including a guardian ad litem.
Argued that children in dependency proceedings are entitled to attorneys who owe the same duty of confidentiality to their child-clients as they do to an adult client.
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.
Sign up to get breaking news from Juvenile Law Center.