Attorneys for the state of Wyoming are disputing a legal team’s argument that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for adults who committed crimes before age of 21 violate the state and U.S. constitutions.
If the courts agree with the lawyers, who represent a man serving life for assisting in two murders when he was 19, it could potentially have implications for dozens of defendants in Wyoming, allowing them a court hearing to consider their youth before sentencing.
The potentially precedent-setting legal debate unfolding in the 6th Judicial District Court in Campbell County centers on the case of Christopher Hicks, who is serving life in prison for his role in the 2005 murders.
Hicks’ attorneys in July filed a 120-page brief arguing that anyone who was under 21 at the time of their crime should be able to present their age as a mitigating factor when they’d otherwise be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility for parole. Courts are not currently allowed to factor youth into mandatory life sentencing decisions when the defendant is 18 or older. The attorneys cited neuroscience and the lack of complete brain development in those younger than 21, adding that young adults have a greater ability to reform.
Their filing requested that the state “correct illegal sentences,” as allowed under the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In arguing mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole violate both the federal and state constitutions, Hicks’ attorneys cite other decisions at the national and state levels where the punishment was found to be a cruel and unusual practice for minors. Other states have also broadened protections for young adults, often citing neuroscience.
The state filed a 10-page response Aug. 28 asking for the judge to deny Hicks’ request.
Hicks could have made this argument to the Wyoming Supreme Court during his 2007 appeal, the state wrote. Citing the Gould v. State decision, the state argues that fact should prevent this case from moving forward.
“It is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration,” the Wyoming Supreme Court wrote in Gould.
The state also argues that this was considered a legal sentence for Hicks at the time and that his lawyers’ argument is more of a policy issue.
“[M]erely because constitutional changes may have occurred in other jurisdictions has no bearing on the legality of the Defendant’s sentences, and it does not mean a constitutional violation occurred at the time of the Defendant’s sentencing,” the filing said.
Even if life in prison without the possibility of parole is considered an unconstitutional sentence for Hicks, the state said Hicks failed to justify why such a change should be backdated to previous cases.
It is now up to the court to determine next steps, which could include dismissal, a ruling for the defendant or a hearing in coming months.
Wyoming is not alone. A man, who is completely innocent of the crime he is convicted of, has been in jail since before this 16th birthday in Michigan. Now he is in his 40s. Efrén Parades is one of the most unusual prisoners ever to see the passage of a federal law that should have freed him, but to have the law ignored by the state of Michigan under the cowardly leadership of Jennifer Granholm and Gretchen Whitmer. His case is worth any curious person’s time, but prepare to be outraged.