youth

5 cases — ← All topics

Case Title Lower Court Docketed Status Flags Tags Question Presented
23-7364 Jorge Galindo v. Nebraska Nebraska 2024-05-02 Denied Relisted (2)IFP capital-punishment death-penalty eddings-v-oklahoma ineffective-assistance lockett-v-ohio mitigation sentencing-considerations supreme-court-precedent tennard-v-dretke youth youth-mitigation May a state categorically exclude youth as a mitigating factor in a capital case?
23-7028 Hunter Thomas Boesch v. Florida Florida 2024-03-19 Denied Response WaivedIFP brain-development cruel-and-unusual-punishment eighth-amendment emerging-adults late-adolescent-brain-development mandatory-life-without-parole miller-v-alabama sentencing-protections youth Whether the sentencing protections afforded in Miller v Alabama should be applied to defendants who are emerging adults 18 to 20 years old
23-5636 Javon Montreal King v. United States Fifth Circuit 2023-09-21 Denied Response WaivedIFP appeal background criminal-sentencing district-court-discretion due-process sentencing-guidelines statutory-maximum substantive-reasonableness youth youth-consideration Whether the district court erred, considering Mr. King's youth and background, when it sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 120 months' imprisonm…
21-5724 Devin Lee Rintye v. California California 2021-09-20 Denied Response WaivedIFP apprendi-v-new-jersey constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-counsel miller-v-alabama mitigating-evidence sentencing youth youth-mitigation Does a State Court violate a defendant's due process rights, contrary to Apprendi v. New Jersey and Miller v. Alabama, when the court does not afford …
21-5498 Raymond Concepcion v. Massachusetts Massachusetts 2021-08-27 Denied Response WaivedIFP criminal-procedure eighth-amendment intellectual-disability juvenile-court juvenile-justice mandatory-sentencing miller-v-alabama proportionality youth youth-culpability Whether the mandatory exclusion of murder defendants between the ages of 14 and 18 from Juvenile Court precludes individualized consideration of their…