« "Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons" | Main | By 5-4 vote, SCOTUS reaffirms all method of execution challenges can proceed as § 1983 actions »

June 22, 2022

Split North Carolina Supreme Court rulings declares sentences excluding parole for over 40 years unconstitutional for juveniles

Last week, as reported in this local article, the Supreme Court of North Carolina issues two notable opinions placing a notable limit on sentences for juvenile offenders.  Here are the basics:

Juveniles convicted of the most violent crimes in North Carolina cannot spend more than 40 years behind bars before becoming eligible for parole.  The N.C. Supreme Court made that determination Friday in a pair of 4-3 decisions.  The court’s four Democratic justices ruled in favor of the defendants in both cases.  The three Republican justices dissented.

In State v. Conner, Democratic justices determined that a 15-year-old convicted of rape and murder faced an excessive prison sentence.

According to Justice Michael Morgan’s majority opinion, Riley Dawson Conner pleaded guilty to raping his aunt outside her home in 2016, then killing her “with blows from a shovel.” He then left her dead body in a wooded area near her home.

Under the original consecutive sentences on rape and murder charges, Conner would have reached the age of 60 before having the chance to seek parole. Such a lengthy sentence would violate federal court precedents involving juvenile offenders, Morgan argued. Instead he and his fellow Democratic justices set a new 40-year maximum prison sentence before a juvenile offender would become eligible for parole....

Republican Justice Phil Berger Jr. rejected the argument. He accused Democratic justices of writing the 40-year maximum sentence into law.  “[T]he majority darts into the legislative lane, usurping legislative authority by enacting its new law simply because they find this result ‘desirable’ for violent juveniles,” Berger wrote in dissent....

Democratic and Republican justices also split in State v. Kelliher.  As with the Conner case, the court’s majority ruled that defendant James Ryan Kelliher should serve no more than 40 years in prison for murders committed when he was 17.

All of the opinions in the Connor and Kelliher cases make for interesting reads. From a quick review, I was struck by the fact that the Connor ruling suggests that both the US and North Carolina constitutions supported the 40-year cap announced by the court. But the Kelliher ruling more expressly relies on the NC constitution as revealed in this paragraph from near the start of the opinion:

After careful review, we hold that it violates both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution to sentence a juvenile homicide offender who has been determined to be “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable” to life without parole.  Furthermore, we conclude that any sentence or combination of sentences which, considered together, requires a juvenile offender to serve more than forty years in prison before becoming eligible for parole is a de facto sentence of life without parole within the meaning of article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution because it deprives the juvenile of a genuine opportunity to demonstrate he or she has been rehabilitated and to establish a meaningful life outside of prison.  Thus, Kelliher’s sentence, which requires him to serve fifty years in prison before becoming eligible for parole, is a de facto sentence of life without parole under article I, section 27.  Because the trial court affirmatively found that Kelliher was “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable,” he could not constitutionally receive this sentence.

June 22, 2022 at 09:32 PM | Permalink


As if 40 years isn't enough for a juvenile defendant! But does this also include juveniles tried as adults? I believe that even juveniles tried as adults are subject to the 40 year limitation too. I knew a North Carolina defendant sentenced to 60 years in prison for an armed robbery and counts of "standing kidnapping" that occurred when he was 18 or 19 years old. While he was incarcerated, the North Carolina Legislature changed the law, and his sentenced was reduced to "only" 30 years. He served 25 years before being paroled. He was taken in by a most supportive church congregation, which provided him with a pickup truck, a job, a home, a little money, clothes and groceries. They included him in worship services and frequently had him into their homes for meals and social visits. But he missed the stability and certainty of prison life, so he robbed a bank with a gun. Unlucky fellow drew as a Federal Judge the former state court Judge who had sentenced him to 60 years decades earlier. The Judge imposed a life sentence. He was just too institutionalized to save.

Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jun 22, 2022 11:29:17 PM

Today I learned that a life expectancy of less than 21.1 years of life and\or starting after age 55 is not particularly "meaningful."

I'm generally sympathetic to "virtual life" arguments, but claiming there's no meaningful difference between possible release at 56 and guaranteed death in prison goes a bit far for me.

Posted by: Jason | Jun 23, 2022 1:09:16 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB