The original instrument and the following digest, which constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument, were prepared by Alden A. Clement Jr.
DIGEST
SB 16 Original 2017 Regular Session Claitor
Present law provides relative to parole eligibility for certain imprisoned offenders under certain
circumstances.
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ____, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for an offender under the age of 18 violates the
8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Accordingly, present law provides parole eligibility for certain juvenile offenders that are serving
a life sentence for first degree murder or second degree murder. Present law further provides parole
eligibility for such persons if a judicial determination has been made that the person is entitled to
parole eligibility pursuant to a sentencing hearing and certain conditions are met, including the
requirement that the person serve 35 years of the sentence imposed.
Present law provides that for persons who are eligible for parole consideration pursuant to present
law, the committee on parole is to meet in a three-member panel, each member of the panel is to be
provided with and is to consider a written evaluation of the offender by a person who has expertise
in adolescent brain development and behavior, and the panel must render specific findings of fact
in support of its decision.
Present law provides that in any case where the offender is to be sentenced to life imprisonment for
a conviction of first degree murder or second degree murder, and the offender was under the age of
18 years at the time of the commission of the offense, a hearing is to be conducted prior to
sentencing to determine whether the sentence will be imposed with or without parole eligibility.
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), the Supreme Court held that
Miller's prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juveniles must be applied retroactively. The
court further held that a state may remedy a Miller violation by extending parole eligibility to
juvenile offenders.
Accordingly, proposed law retains present law except that proposed law does the following:
(1)Provides parole eligibility for any person serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a
conviction of first or second degree murder who was under the age of 18 years at the time
of the commission of the offense and whose conviction became final prior to 6/25/12 if
certain conditions are met, including the condition that the person serve at least 30 years of
the sentence imposed. The present law sentencing hearing is not required to determine
whether such persons are eligible for parole. (2)Amends the present law provision that provides parole eligibility for persons convicted of
first or second degree murder who were under the age of 18 at the time of the commission
of the offense and whose conviction became final on or after 6/25/12, to decrease the number
of years such persons are required to serve prior to becoming eligible for parole from 35 to
30. Proposed law retains the present law requirement of a sentencing hearing to determine
whether such persons are eligible for parole.
(3)Adds that, upon motion by the district attorney within 180 days of obtaining an indictment,
a sentencing hearing is to be held in any case where a juvenile offender is to be sentenced to
life imprisonment for a conviction of first degree murder to determine whether the sentence
will be imposed with or without parole eligibility.
(4)Deletes the requirement of a sentencing hearing for juvenile offenders convicted of second
degree murder, regardless of the date of conviction, to determine whether the life sentence
will be imposed with or without parole eligibility. Such persons are eligible for parole upon
serving 30 years of the sentence imposed and meeting other conditions in present law.
(5)Provides that for all persons eligible for parole pursuant to provisions of present law and
proposed law, the committee on parole is to meet in a three-member panel, and each member
of the panel is to be provided with and is to consider a written evaluation of the offender by
a person who has expertise in adolescent brain development and behavior. The panel must
render specific findings of fact in support of its decision.
Effective upon signature of the governor or lapse of time for gubernatorial action.
(Amends C.Cr.P. Art. 878.1(A) and R.S. 15:574.4(E)(1)(intro para) and 574.4(E)(1)(a); adds R.S.
15:574.4(F))