State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera
235 Ariz. 571
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Vera was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree burglary for offenses in October 1995 and sentenced to life without parole for the murder plus concurrent terms for burglaries.
- Vera argued a significant change in law from Miller v. Alabama entitled him to post-conviction relief under Rule 32.1(g).
- The trial court granted relief, ruling Miller applied retroactively and that Vera's sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
- HB 2593 enacted during the pendency of proceedings added A.R.S. § 13-716, providing parole eligibility after serving the minimum term for juveniles sentenced to life with parole after age 18, effective July 24, 2014.
- Arizona Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review, stayed resentencing, and, because § 13-716 provides an adequate remedy, vacated the trial court’s order and denied Vera’s cross-petition as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-716 provides an adequate remedy for a Miller claim. | Vera argues § 13-716 retroactively and inadequately remedies Miller. | State contends § 13-716 provides a remedial, not retroactive, remedy and covers future release opportunities. | Yes; § 13-716 provides an adequate remedy and remedial effect. |
| Whether Miller applies retroactively on collateral review. | Vera argues Miller applies retroactively and invalidates his sentence. | State argues Miller does not retroactively apply on collateral review and that § 13-716 provides remedy. | Court did not decide retroactivity; § 13-716 provides remedy regardless. |
| Whether § 13-716 would infringe on judiciary's role or disturb vested rights. | Vera cites separation-of-powers concerns about retroactive effect. | State asserts § 13-716 is remedial, affects only release eligibility, not penalties. | Not retroactive and does not infringe; statute governs release eligibility and is remedial. |
| Whether the trial court erred in resentencing Vera given new law. | Vera contends Miller required resentencing. | State argues 13-716 supersedes the need for resentencing. | Relief granted to the State; trial court’s resentencing order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. (2012)) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; individualized sentencing required)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. (2010)) (juvenile non-homicide offenders must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. (2005)) (juveniles are constitutionally different for purposes of sentencing)
- Tyree v. Moran, 113 Ariz. 275 (Ariz. 1976) (remedial nature of statutes; not retroactive if remedial and affect future events)