Did Kentucky violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it allowed a youth who was 17 when his crimes occurred to be sentenced to life in prison plus 50 years based on an involuntary plea to a minimum 20 years that contained a maximum sentence 'hammer clause' which operated as an unreasonable penalty that was grossly disproportionate for relatively minor, mitigated infractions without a meaningful, demonstrated inquiry as in Miller and Montgomery into whether this harsh sentence is appropriate for this youth under all the circumstances of his case?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has refined how sentencing for juveniles must comport with the Eighth Amendment, culminating in its decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). Other well-established Fourteenth Amendment requirements exist for a valid guilty plea. Petitioner, Layw Thomas, pled guilty to murder in one indictment, and robbery, assault and wanton endangerment in a second indictment. He was 17 years old when the crimes were committed. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the prosecutor offered 20 years on the murder and a total of 12 years on the robbery case, to run concurrently for 20 years. However, both offers included a form “hammer clause” that raised his sentences to the maximum for all charges, run consecutively, if he failed to appear at sentencing. Thomas was released on his own recognizance with an ankle monitor to live in Tennessee with his mother after the plea in the murder case. He did not appear for sentencing. After he was returned for sentencing, the trial court imposed a life sentence plus 50 years because of the hammer clause. After the Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated that judgment and remanded the case for re-sentencing, the trial court imposed the exact same sentence again. The question for this Court is: Did Kentucky violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it allowed a youth who was 17 when his crimes occurred to be sentenced to life in prison plus 50 years based on an involuntary plea to a minimum 20 years that contained a maximum sentence “hammer clause” which operated as an unreasonable penalty that was grossly disproportionate for relatively minor, mitigated infractions without a meaningful, demonstrated inquiry as in Miller and Montgomery into whether this harsh sentence is appropriate for this youth under all the circumstances of his case? ii LIST OF ALL