People v. Lehmkuhl
2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 1137
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- In October 2001, 17-year-old Jordan Lehmkuhl committed multiple violent crimes (burglary, menacing, motor vehicle theft, sexual assault) involving three victims; he was prosecuted as an adult.
- After postconviction litigation, Lehmkuhl received consecutive sentences totaling 76 years to life; convictions and sentences were previously upheld on appeal.
- Lehmkuhl filed a Crim. P. 35/85 collateral motion arguing his aggregate sentence for juvenile offenses was a de facto life-without-parole term in violation of the Eighth Amendment under Graham v. Florida.
- The district court denied relief, finding parole eligibility in 2050 (age ~67) and a statutory life expectancy above that date, concluding a "meaningful opportunity for release" exists.
- The court of appeals affirmed: it held (1) the aggregate sentence was not the functional equivalent of life without parole because parole eligibility falls before life expectancy, and (2) the trial court adequately considered Lehmkuhl’s youth and other mitigating factors in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lehmkuhl) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregate consecutive terms that make parole eligibility late in life constitute a de facto life-without-parole sentence under Graham | Aggregate 76-year-to-life term denies a meaningful opportunity for release within natural life expectancy, violating Graham | Parole eligibility in 2050 (age ~67) precedes statutory/CDC life expectancy, so a meaningful opportunity to obtain release exists | Court held sentence is not a de facto life-without-parole sentence; Graham not violated |
| Whether the district court failed to consider the defendant's youth and other mitigating factors at sentencing under Graham/Miller | Court did not adequately inquire into youth-related mitigators (maturity, family, abuse, substance use) | Record shows the court repeatedly considered age, lack of criminal record, and community reputation; no sua sponte duty to probe further | Court held sentencing court properly considered youth and mitigating factors |
| Whether CDC life tables or Colorado statutory mortality table must be used to measure meaningful opportunity for release | Lehmkuhl argued CDC tables or lower incarcerated-population expectancy might show parole after life expectancy | Court used Colorado statutory mortality table (and noted CDC would not change result) — no rule requiring CDC tables | Court found use of statutory table appropriate and result unchanged even under CDC tables |
| Whether remand/evidentiary hearing was required to develop evidence about parole board practice and treatment backlogs | Lehmkuhl sought fact development to show parole unlikely and treatment backlog will delay release past life expectancy | State argued such claims were speculative and were not developed below; no request was made in district court for evidentiary development | Court denied relief and refused remand or hearing because issues were not raised below and evidence was speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes; requires a "meaningful opportunity" for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (extends Graham reasoning to mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (recognizes youth-related differences relevant to sentencing: immaturity, susceptibility, and undeveloped character)
- Close v. People, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002) (for cruel-and-unusual proportionality review, Colorado evaluates individual sentences rather than aggregate terms)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) (lower courts should follow Supreme Court precedent directly controlling a case and leave overruling to the Supreme Court)
- People v. Lehmkuhl, 117 P.3d 98 (Colo. App. 2004) (prior appellate decision upholding Lehmkuhl's convictions)