602 S.W.3d 96
Ark.2020Background
- In 1995 Rico Benton pled guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He was 21 years old at the time of the offense.
- Benton filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing his LWOP sentence is unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and its progeny because, although over 18, he was young and immature.
- The Lincoln County Circuit Court dismissed his habeas petition for failing to show facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction and denied an evidentiary hearing for lack of probable cause.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Miller/Graham have not been extended to offenders who were eighteen or older when the crime was committed and that Benton failed to show the conviction was invalid on its face.
- The majority relied on Arkansas precedent limiting habeas relief to cases of facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and on decisions refusing to extend juvenile-sentencing precedents to adults 18+.
- Justice Hart dissented, arguing Benton was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop a Miller-based claim and that federal precedent (as applied in Jackson-related proceedings) requires broader habeas consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller v. Alabama’s prohibition on mandatory LWOP for juveniles extends to offenders older than 18 who were "immature" | Benton: Miller’s reasoning about youth and diminished culpability should apply to 18–21-year-olds; his youth/immaturity merits relief | Kelley: Supreme Court has not extended Miller to those 18+; states and courts treat 18 as the line between juvenile and adult for sentencing | Denied. Miller/Graham have not been extended to offenders who were 18 or older at the time of the offense; Benton’s claim fails |
| Whether habeas corpus lies when the conviction/sentence is challenged as Eighth Amendment–excessive rather than facially invalid | Benton: Habeas is appropriate to challenge constitutionality of LWOP under evolving Eighth Amendment standards | Kelley: Under Arkansas law habeas lies only where judgment is facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction; Benton did not meet that standard | Denied. Benton failed to show facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect; habeas not available for his claim |
| Whether a circuit court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the habeas petition | Benton: A hearing is needed to develop evidence supporting application of Miller to his case | Kelley: No hearing required absent a showing of probable cause for issuance of the writ | Denied. No probable cause shown; no statutory mandate for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (LWOP for juveniles in nonhomicide cases violates Eighth Amendment)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty for juvenile offenders unconstitutional; framework for Eighth Amendment youth analysis)
- Jackson v. Norris, 378 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2011) (Arkansas habeas formulation questioned; cited in dissent regarding U.S. Supreme Court correction)
- Burgie v. State, 575 S.W.3d 127 (Ark. 2019) (refused to extend Miller/Graham to offenders who were 18 or older)