Does a treatable, but not curable, mental illness constitute irreparable corruption' under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In Graham v. Florida, this Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the imposition of -life without parole on a juvenile for non-homicide offense. 560 U.S. 48 (2010). In Miller v. Alabama, this Court held that mandatory sentences of life without parole imposed on a juvenile homicide offender violate the Eighth Amendment. 132 S. Ct. 24455, 2469 (2012). In : Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Court reiterated that if the judge has discretion to impose such a sentence under state, the Eight Amendment requires a sentencing judge to find that a crime reflects “permanent incorrigibility” or “irreparable corruption” before imposing that sentence. ~ 1368. Ct. 718 (2016) (citing Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469). Following Montgomery, this Court . granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded a series of cases to the state ~ court for further consideration in light of Montgomery. See, e.g., Tatum v. Arizona, 1378. Ct. 11 (2016); Arias v. Arizona, 137 S. Ct. 370 (2016); Adams v. Alabama, 136 S. Ct. 1796 (2016). . . Here, in 1989, when Mr. Kinkel was a 15 year old juvenile suffering from an untreated mental illness, he shot his parents and, the next day, travel to school, where he killed two students and injured 26 others. After he pleaded guilty, the trial court sentenced him to consecutive mandatory minimums totaling nearly 112 years. Mr. Kinkel filed a successive state post-conviction . challenging his sentence based on Graham and Miller, but was denied relief on procedural grounds. He was never provided an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not “irreparably , corrupt” or “permanently incorrigible” as required in Montgomery. The Oregon Supreme Court accepted review and affirmed the lower court’s decision on different grounds: that Miller did not apply to Mr. Kinkel due to his aggregate sentence and because his treatable, but not curable mental illness, rendered him “irreparably corrupt” under Miller’s standard. This case thus presents the following questions: . 1. Does a treatable, but not curable, mental illness constitute “irreparable corruption” under Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana? 2. Do Graham vy. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana apply to a juvenile under the age of 18 sentenced to 112 years in prison? 3. Is a juvenile under the age of 18 entitled to a meaningful opportunity under Miller v. : Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana to present evidence showing they are not “irreparably corrupt” or “permanently incorrigible” before the state can impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole?