State v. Hardman.dissent

2017 Ark. 259

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: September 21, 2017
• Docket: CR-17-614
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2017 Ark. 259

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-17-614

Opinion Delivered: September 21, 2017 STATE OF ARKANSAS PETITIONER APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 60CR-00-1457]

BRANDON HARDMAN HONORABLE WENDELL LEE RESPONDENT GRIFFEN, JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

The circuit court has ruled the Arkansas General Assembly’s adoption of the

“Wyoming remedy” is unconstitutional and ordered new sentencing hearings before a jury

for defendants who were sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed as juveniles.

The majority of this court has chosen not to address the ruling under this procedural posture,

I dissent.

In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held, “[g]iving Miller retroactive

effect, moreover, does not require States to relitigate sentences . . . in every case where a

juvenile offender received mandatory life without parole. A state may remedy a Miller

violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than

resentencing them.” 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court

cited the Wyoming legislature, which affords juveniles parole eligibility after 25 years, as an

example of a sufficient remedy to a Miller error. Id. The Arkansas General Assembly

statutorily provided defendants in Arkansas the “Wyoming remedy” when it enacted the Cite as 2017 Ark. 259

Fair Sentencing of Minors Act (FSMA), Act 539 of 2017. As I believe compliance with

FSMA is the correct procedure, I would grant the writ.

WOMACK, J., joins.