U.S. Supreme Court may hear Illinois case on life sentences for juvenile
offenders
Send a link to a friend
[June 25, 2021]
By SARAH MANSUR
Capitol News Illinois
smansur@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD — Lawyers for an Illinois man
who was sentenced to 130 years for a murder when he was 16 years old are
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify how life sentences for
juveniles should be reevaluated in light of recent U.S Supreme Court
decisions against that practice.
Ashanti Lusby’s lawyers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last month to
hear Lusby’s case challenging his sentence as unconstitutional cruel and
unusual punishment, based on two recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions,
Miller v. Alabama in 2012 and Montgomery v. Louisiana in 2016.
In the Miller case, the court ruled that mandatory life sentences
without parole for juvenile homicide offenders are unconstitutional
because it qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. The court decided
that children are different than adults for the purposes of mandatory
life sentences because such sentences pose “too great a risk of
disproportionate punishment.”
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2021/Jun/25/images/ads/current/charrons_bch041713.png)
In the Montgomery case, the court clarified that its decision in the
Miller case can be applied retroactively, and “requires a sentencer to
consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics
before determining that life without parole is a proportionate
sentence,” according to the opinion.
Lusby’s 130-year sentence for the 1996 rape and murder of elementary
school teacher, Jennifer Happ, in Joliet was not a mandatory sentence,
but it is a de facto life sentence because it amounts to a lifetime in
prison.
In October, Lusby exhausted his legal avenues in Illinois when the
Illinois Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision that his 2002 sentencing
hearing did not violate U.S. Supreme Court case law because the
sentencing judge sufficiently considered his age and factors related to
his youth.
In their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Lusby’s lawyers argued that
the court should clarify the procedures for reconsidering actual and de
facto life sentences for juvenile offenders who were sentenced before
the protections in the Miller and Montgomery cases were established.
Since those decisions were issued, state courts have varied widely in
their application of the precedents on sentences imposed before 2012,
the petition states.
For example, in 30 states and Washington, D.C., all juveniles sentenced
to life in prison without parole prior to Miller are now either
automatically entitled to a new sentencing hearing or have become
eligible for parole or judicial modification of their sentence.
In other states, juvenile homicide offenders are not eligible for parole
and are not afforded automatic review of their sentences. Those states
also have differing approaches for handling juvenile resentencing in
cases decided before 2012.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/062521pics/news_y47.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court building is pictured in
Washington, D.C. (Credit: Supremecourt.gov)
![](../images/ads/current/centraldirect_lda_SPONSOR_2021.png)
Two years ago, the Illinois General Assembly changed
the law to allow certain offenders under age 21 to be eligible for
parole after 10 years, and certain individuals convicted of murder
to be eligible for parole after 20 years.
However, the law does not apply retroactively.
“Applying Miller and Montgomery, juveniles must be given some sort
of process by which they can present and the court can consider
factors related to their youth in light of what we now know based on
Miller,” Lusby’s lawyers wrote in their petition to the U.S. Supreme
Court. “The practice of Illinois and other States that does not
require that the record show that the trial court who sentenced a
juvenile homicide offender to (life with the opportunity for parole)
prior to Miller actually considered the offender’s youth and
attendant characteristics fails to ensure that basic constitutional
mandate.”
At the time of the crime, Lusby had a criminal record that included
violent offenses and was expelled from school due to his
participation in a gang. His sisters were also involved in crime,
and their father was absent from their lives, the petition states.
These details about Lusby’s home life and background should have
received greater scrutiny from Lusby’s sentencing judge and carried
more weight in determining Lusby’s sentencing, his lawyers argued.
“But, again, nothing about Lusby’s background – or his inability to
extricate himself from those surroundings as a 16-year-old – was
considered by the court before sentencing Lusby to die in prison,”
the petition states. “A proper Miller hearing would take into
account this evidence, unlike the hearing received by Lusby prior to
Miller.”
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2021/Jun/25/images/ads/current/ccaonline_lda050208.png)
Lusby is represented by lawyers with the Illinois Office of the
State Appellate Defender, including Douglas R. Hoff.
A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, which represents
the state in this case, did not comment.
The state’s response to Lusby’s petition is due July 2.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
news service covering state government and distributed to more than
400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois
Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation. |