RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
ACT 277 (SB 16) 2017 Regular Session Claitor
Prior law crimes of first degree rape (formerly aggravated rape) and aggravated kidnapping
both carried a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole.
In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the 8th Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment does not permit a juvenile offender to be
sentenced to life in prison without a reasonable opportunity for parole for a non-homicide
crime.
Prior law provided parole eligibility for juvenile offenders serving a life sentence for
aggravated rape or aggravated kidnapping when certain conditions are met, including the
requirement that the person serve 30 years of the sentence imposed.
New law decreases the amount of time the juvenile offender is required to serve prior to
becoming parole eligible from 30 years of the sentence imposed to 25 years of the sentence
imposed. New law otherwise retains prior law.
Prior law crimes of first degree murder and second degree murder carried a sentence of life
imprisonment without benefit of parole.
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory life
imprisonment without parole for any offender under the age of 18 violates the 8th
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Prior law provided that a juvenile serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a conviction
of first or second degree murder is eligible for parole consideration if a judicial determination
has been made that the person is entitled to parole eligibility pursuant to prior law and certain
conditions are met, including the requirement that the person serve 35 years of the sentence
imposed. Prior law further provided that in any case where an offender is to be sentenced
to life imprisonment for a conviction of first 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 must be
conducted prior to sentencing to determine whether the sentence is to be imposed with or
without parole eligibility. These provisions of prior law relative to juvenile sentences of life
imprisonment for homicide offenses were applied only to persons whose conviction became
final after the decision in Miller.
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ____ (2016), the Supreme Court held Miller applies
retroactively to persons whose conviction became final prior to the Miller decision rendered
on 6/25/12.
New law provides:
(1) If an offender is indicted on or after Aug. 1, 2017, for the crime of first degree
murder where the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the
commission of the offense, then the district attorney may file a notice of intent to
seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole within 180 days
after the indictment. If the district attorney timely files the notice of intent, a hearing
must be conducted to determine whether the sentence is to be imposed with or
without parole eligibility. If the court determines that the sentence is to be imposed
without parole eligibility, then the defendant is not eligible for parole. If the court
determines that the offender is eligible for parole or if the district attorney fails to
timely file the notice of intent, then the offender will be eligible for parole pursuant
to new law, which requires certain conditions to be met, including the condition that
the offender is required to serve 25 years of the sentence imposed.
(2)If an offender is indicted on or after 8/1/17 for the crime of second degree murder
where the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of
the offense, then the offender is eligible for parole pursuant to prior law, which
requires certain conditions to be met, including the condition that the offender be
required to serve 25 years of the sentence imposed. (3) If an offender was indicted prior to 8/1/17 for the crime of first or second degree
murder where the offender was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of
the offense and a hearing was not held prior to 8/1/17 to determine whether the
offender's sentence should be imposed with or without parole eligibility, then the
district attorney may file a notice of intent to seek a sentence a life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole within 90 days of Aug. 1, 2017. If the district
attorney timely files the notice of intent, a hearing is to be conducted to determine
whether the sentence is to be imposed with or without parole eligibility. If the court
determines that the sentence is to be imposed without parole eligibility, then the
offender is not eligible for parole. If the court determines that the sentence is to be
imposed with parole eligibility or if the district attorney fails to timely file the notice
of intent, then the offender will be eligible for parole pursuant to new law, which
requires certain conditions to be met, including the condition that the offender serve
25 years of the sentence imposed.
(4) If an offender was indicted prior to 8/1/17 for the crime of first or second degree
murder where the offender was under the age of 18 years at the time of the
commission of the offense and a hearing was held to determine whether the
offender's sentence should be imposed with or without parole eligibility, then the
following apply:
(a)If the court determined that the offender's sentence was to be imposed with
parole eligibility, then the offender is eligible for parole pursuant to prior law.
(b)If the court determined that the offender's sentence was to be imposed
without parole eligibility, then the offender is not be eligible for parole.
New law provides that, with regard to the hearing for the judicial determination as to the
offender's parole eligibility:
(1) The admissibility of expert witness testimony in these matters is to be governed by
prior law (Code of Evidence).
(2) The sole purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the sentence will be imposed
with or without parole eligibility.
(3) The court must state for the record the considerations taken into account and the
factual basis for its determination.
Effective August 1, 2017.
(Amends R.S. 15:574.4(D)(1)(a) and (2) and (E)(1)(intro para) and (a) and C.Cr.P. Art.
878.1; adds R.S. 15:574.4(F) and (G))