When a state abolishes its parole system, does it create a mandatory life-without-parole sentence that, when imposed on a juvenile homicide offender, violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Miller?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), this Court held that imposing a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment when that sentence is the product of a mandatory sentencing regime. Three years before the crimes for which Mr. Aguilar is serving two consecutive sentences of life without parole were committed, the Arizona legislature abolished parole, leaving only the possibility of “release on any basis” as an available sentencing option. This Court, the Ninth Circuit, the Arizona Supreme Court, and the Arizona Court of Appeals have all said that “release” under sentencing statute does not mean parole. See Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam); Crespin v. Ryan, 46 F.4th 803, 806 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing State v. Wagner, 510 P.3d 1083, 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022)); Chaparro v. Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020). Nevertheless, the court below held that Arizona did not have a mandatory sentencing scheme, and that the sentences Mr. Aguilar received complied with Miller. This case presents the following question: When astate abolishes its parole system, does it create a mandatory life-without-parole sentence that, when imposed on a juvenile homicide offender, violates the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Miller?