Hobbs v. Turner
2014 Ark. 19
Ark.2014Background
- In 1991 Barry Turner (age 17 at offense) pled and was sentenced for multiple felonies, receiving life imprisonment for kidnapping plus additional terms, totaling life plus 15 years.
- After Graham v. Florida (2010) barred life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, Turner petitioned for habeas in Jefferson County seeking resentencing (10–40 years) or transfer for resentencing.
- The State conceded the life-without-parole aspect was unconstitutional but argued the remedy should be either severing parole-ineligibility to allow life with parole (not authorized by statute) or resentencing to the statutory maximum term (40 years).
- The circuit court found it lacked authority to create a life-with-parole sentence (not authorized by statute) and resentenced Turner to 40 years for kidnapping, leaving other sentences intact (total 55 years).
- The State appealed, arguing the proper cure was life with parole; Turner cross-appealed, arguing the court failed to consider his youth as required by Graham/Miller and mechanically imposed the statutory maximum without individualized consideration.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal and cross-appeal: courts cannot create a life-with-parole sentence where legislature did not authorize it; resentencing to a lawful nonlife term satisfies Graham; Miller did not apply to nonhomicide offenders and Graham’s categorical relief already accounted for youth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether life-with-parole is an available remedy | Life-with-parole is unauthorized; court cannot invent a new sentence | Parole-ineligibility statute is severable; cure by making life parole-eligible | Held for State’s limit: court may not create life-with-parole; legislature did not authorize it, so 40 years is maximum lawful term |
| Proper remedy under Graham for juvenile nonhomicide life sentences | Graham requires individualized consideration of youth at resentencing; court should not automatically impose statutory max | Graham allows states to choose remedies; in habeas court remedy is to correct illegal sentence (convert to lawful maximum) | Held for State: converting to a lawful nonlife sentence satisfies Graham; no entitlement to de novo individualized resentencing in habeas beyond eliminating life-without-parole |
| Applicability of Miller to resentencing nonhomicide juvenile | Miller’s requirement to consider youth mandates more than categorical relief; resentencing must consider youth | Miller applies to juvenile homicide mandatory life schemes, not to nonhomicide discretionary/ categorical prohibitions | Held for State: Miller inapplicable; Graham governs nonhomicide juveniles and was satisfied by imposing a nonlife term |
| Whether habeas resentencing may impose below-statutory-maximum term | Court should consider youth and could impose a lower, proportionate term (e.g., 22 years under current guidelines) | Habeas relief is narrow; court must correct illegality and impose the lawful maximum when original intent sought maximum | Held for State: habeas court acted within authority to impose statutory maximum; Graham’s categorical bar already accounted for youth, so no further reduction required in this proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment forbids life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles requires individualized consideration of youth)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles have diminished culpability; death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (possibility of commutation is not equivalent to parole eligibility)
- Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760 (2002) (habeas proceedings correct illegal sentences by imposing statutory maximum when original sentence exceeded it)