Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Municipal Court of California, County of San Diego — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
Malvo v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-11-18
The case concerned whether Lee Boyd Malvo, a juvenile offender convicted in Maryland of multiple murders and sentenced before 2012 to several consecutive terms of life without parole, was entitled to resentencing under recent U.S. Supreme Court Eighth Amendment rulings. Those decisions prohibit such sentences for juveniles whose crimes reflect transient immaturity rather than permanent incorrigibility and require a meaningful opportunity for release. The Court of Appeals held that Malvo must be resentenced because his original proceeding occurred before those rulings and the sentencing court may not have made the required determination; it further ruled that Maryland’s Juvenile Restoration Act, while generally providing such an opportunity after 20 years, does not substitute for resentencing in this instance of multiple pre-ruling LWOP terms. The court emphasized that any new sentence remains within the trial court’s discretion so long as it complies with the constitutional standards.
criminal lawcivil rights
2022 Legislative Districting
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-08-31
The case concerned multiple challenges to Maryland’s 2022 legislative redistricting plan for the General Assembly, alleging violations of Article III, §§ 3 and 4 of the state constitution (equal population, compactness, contiguity, and due regard for natural and political boundaries) as well as related federal requirements. The Court of Appeals upheld the plan. It held that redistricting authority rests with the Governor and General Assembly, that an adopted plan enjoys a presumption of validity, and that challengers must present compelling evidence of noncompliance before the State must justify its choices. The court further ruled that equal population is the dominant criterion, that oddly shaped districts or features such as a river crossing do not by themselves prove violations of compactness or contiguity, that a mix of single- and multi-member subdistricts is permitted, and that reallocating incarcerated persons to their pre-incarceration domiciles is constitutional.
elections
2022 Legislative Districting
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-08-31 · cited 1×
The case concerned multiple challenges to Maryland’s 2022 state legislative redistricting plan, alleging violations of Article III, §4 of the Maryland Constitution (equal population, compactness, contiguity, and due regard for political boundaries) as well as related federal requirements. The Court of Appeals upheld the plan, ruling that it satisfied all constitutional criteria. The court explained that redistricting authority belongs to the Governor and General Assembly, that adopted plans carry a presumption of validity, and that challengers must present compelling evidence of noncompliance before the State must justify its choices. It further held that equal population is the dominant requirement, that oddly shaped districts or minor boundary crossings do not automatically violate compactness or contiguity, that legislative privilege protects internal communications, and that statutes reallocating incarcerated persons for population counts are permissible.
elections
Farmer v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-08-26 · cited 8×
Michael Farmer, who as a 17-year-old pled guilty to two first-degree murders, received two consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole and filed a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that the sentences violated the Eighth Amendment because Maryland parole procedures do not guarantee state-furnished counsel to assist inmates at parole hearings, denying juvenile offenders the “meaningful opportunity” for release based on maturity and rehabilitation required by recent Supreme Court precedent. The Court of Appeals held that the claim was not cognizable under the rule. The court reasoned that a Rule 4-345(a) motion addresses only errors inherent in the sentence itself and cannot be used to litigate future parole-administration procedures or collateral rights that may affect release. On its face, the sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility for a juvenile homicide offender is lawful, and any challenge to parole counsel availability must be pursued through other procedural mechanisms at the appropriate time.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Malvo v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-08-26
The case concerned whether Lee Boyd Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the 2002 Beltway sniper murders and received multiple consecutive life-without-parole sentences as an adult, was entitled to resentencing under the Eighth Amendment. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Malvo must be resentenced because his original proceeding occurred before key Supreme Court decisions requiring that juvenile homicide offenders receive individualized consideration of whether their crimes reflected transient immaturity rather than permanent incorrigibility. The court reasoned that, although the sentencing judge had discretion and considered Malvo’s youth, the absence of an explicit determination on incorrigibility and the existence of multiple consecutive sentences meant that the Juvenile Restoration Act’s opportunity for release after 20 years did not substitute for a new sentencing hearing compliant with current constitutional standards.
criminal law
Jedlicka v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2022-08-26
The case concerned Seth Jedlicka, a juvenile offender convicted of first-degree felony murder and related offenses, who challenged his Maryland sentence of life imprisonment with all but 60 years suspended (along with concurrent term-of-years sentences) as unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals held that the sentence was not a de facto life-without-parole term, was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and did not require additional individualized sentencing procedures. It reasoned that, under the test from Carter v. State, the 60-year term with parole eligibility after 25 years was not equivalent to life without parole, that Miller v. Alabama’s heightened protections apply only to actual LWOP sentences for juvenile homicide offenders, and that the Maryland Constitution is interpreted coextensively with the federal provision for such sentences. The court further found that the sentencing record showed adequate consideration of Jedlicka’s youth, psychological evaluation, and mitigating circumstances, without improper reliance on codefendant sentences.
criminal lawcivil rights