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 juvenile's sentence to an extreme term of years sentence deprives them of a meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release and is thus unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama.
Argued that Petitioner Bunch's sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, which held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole without a meaningful and realistic opportunity to re-enter society prior to the expiration of their sentences for non-homicide offenses.
Argued that juvenile's sentence to an extreme term of years sentence deprives them of a meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release and is thus unconstitutional pursuant to Graham v. Florida.
Argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles in Miller should apply retroactively to inmates like Vigil, who was sentenced prior to the Miller ruling.
Argued that Massachusetts' sentencing scheme for juveniles 14 and older convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and that the Massachusetts Supreme Court must look to existing statutes to determine what constitutional sentence may be imposed.
Motions were filed with the juvenile court seeking nunc pro tunc relief on behalf of youth who in York County had been adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses prior to December 2012 when the SORNA law went into effect. The motions for nunc pro tunc relief ask the court to reconsider their classification as juvenile sex offenders and remove their information from the sex offender registry.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.
One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.