No. 21-7435

Ronell Williams v. Kansas

Lower Court: Kansas
Docketed: 2022-03-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 8th-amendment constitutional-interpretation discretionary-sentencing jones-v-mississippi juvenile-sentencing life-without-parole miller-v-alabama sentencing-discretion youth-characteristics
Key Terms:
Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does this Court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi mandate that states must strictly apply that any discretion in sentencing a juvenile to life without parole (or its functional equivalent) is all that is required for the sentence to be constitutional, and no consideration of youth and its attendant characteristics is required if the sentence is not strictly mandatory?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does this Court’s decision in Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S.___,___, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 1320, 209 L. Ed. 2d 390 (2021) mandate that states must strictly apply that any discretion in sentencing a juvenile to life without parole (or its functional equivalent), is all that is required for the sentence to be constitutional, and no consideration of youth and its attendant characteristics is required if the sentence is not strictly mandatory. ii

Docket Entries

2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-13
Waiver of right of respondent State of Kansas to respond filed.
2022-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 21, 2022)

Attorneys

Ronell Williams
Joseph Andrew DeschLaw Office of Joseph A. Desch, Petitioner
State of Kansas
Brant M. LaueSolicitor General of Kansas, Respondent