Chaz Bunch v. Keith Smith
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13756
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chaz Bunch, then 16, was convicted in Ohio for rape, complicity to rape, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and related firearm specifications arising from a 2001 attack on M.K., a 22-year-old student.
- The trial court sentenced him to consecutive, maximum terms totaling 89 years, despite his juvenilе status at the time of the offenses.
- The Ohio appellate courts rejected his Eighth Amendment challenge to the length of the sentence; the Ohio Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
- Bunch filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition; AEDPA applied because the claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, and Graham v. Florida was decided after those state decisions.
- The district court denied relief; after Graham was decided, this court granted a certificate of appealability on the Eighth Amendment issue.
- The court holds that, even if Graham applies, the sentence—consecutive, fixed terms for multiple nonhomicide offenses—has not been clearly established as unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graham applies on collateral review to Bunch | Bunch asserts Graham applies and bars a juvenile nonhomicide consecutive sentence. | Graham does not clearly apply to consecutive fixed terms for multiple nonhomicide offenses. | Graham not clearly applicable; no relief under AEDPA. |
| Whether Bunch's sentence violates clearly established federal law even if Graham applies | 89-year aggregate equals life without parole for a juvenile nonhomicide offender. | Graham addressed life without parole for a single nonhomicide offense, not consecutive fixed terms for multiple offenses. | Sentence not contrary to clearly established federal law. |
| Whether Graham’s framework applies to the issue of consecutive, fixed-term sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders | Graham categorically prohibits such sentences for juveniles. | Graham did not address consecutive, fixed-term sentences; thus not clearly established as unconstitutional. | Graham does not clearly apply to this sentencing structure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders barred; requires opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. (2012) (2012) (extends Graham to mandatory life without parole for homicide juveniles; does not address consecutive fixed terms)
- Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (2011) (defines 'clearly established Federal law' for AEDPA on the merits)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework for new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile culpability and maturity informing sentencing limits)
- People v. J.I.A., 260 P.3d 283 (Cal. 2011) (california decisions on long juvenile sentences post-Graham)
- People v. Nunez, 255 P.3d 951 (Cal. 2011) (california decisions on long juvenile sentences post-Graham)
- Henry v. State, 82 So.3d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (split on Graham applicability to nonhomicide juvenile sentencing beyond life without parole)