252 N.C. App. 174 - State v. Jefferson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The decisions of the state courts which have been asked to extend Miller beyond explicit sentences of life without parole similarly make clear the touchstone of the Miller analysis is whether the defendant is sentenced to a life term (or its functional equivalent) without an opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. In State v. Null [ 836 N.W.2d 41 (2013) ], the Iowa Supreme Court invalidated a mandatory 52.5 year sentence, noting that geriatric release, if one is to be afforded the opportunity for release at all, does not provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to regain his freedom and reenter society. Similarly, the Wyoming, Indiana, and California supreme courts have held Miller requires individualized sentencing where one or more mandatory minimum sentences results in a de facto life sentence without parole. Defendant's sentence is neither an explicit nor a de facto term of life imprisonment without parole. Upon serving twenty-five years of his sentence, Defendant will become eligible for parole, where state law mandates he be given an opportunity to provide the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission with evidence of his maturity and rehabilitation. The Commission may only refuse him parole if it appears Defendant is a substantial risk to violate the conditions of his parole, his release would unduly depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law, his rehabilitation would be better served by rem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 263 N.C. App. 355 - State v. Seam

2. “held that a State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them ... [because] it ensures that juveniles ... will not be forced to serve disproportionate sentences in violation of the Eighth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 263 N.C. App. 355 - State v. Seam

3. “be extended to reach sentences of life with the possibility of parole.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 263 N.C. App. 355 - State v. Seam