State of Tennessee v. Zachary Everett Davis - Concurring
M2016-01579-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Juvenile defendant convicted of first-degree murder in Sumner County, Tennessee and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
- Tennessee statute allows three sentencing options for first-degree murder: death, life without parole, or life; but release eligibility for life typically requires serving an effective multi-decade term (at least ~51 years under §40-35-501).
- Majority opinion held the sentence constitutional because Tennessee does not impose a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for juveniles.
- Concurring opinion (Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., joined by Judge McMullen) agrees with the result but voices policy concerns that Tennessee’s life sentence scheme produces a de facto life-without-parole outcome for juveniles.
- The concurrence warns that, despite compliance with the narrow holdings of Miller and Montgomery, Tennessee’s identical treatment of juveniles and adults may violate the spirit of Supreme Court precedents requiring individualized consideration of youth and a meaningful opportunity for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tennessee's life sentence for juvenile first-degree murder violates Eighth Amendment under Miller/Montgomery | State: statutory scheme is constitutional because life is not mandatory LWOP and sentencing procedure complies with precedent | Defendant: life sentence effectively denies meaningful opportunity for release and is functionally equivalent to LWOP for juveniles | Court: Affirmed — Tennessee's scheme does not violate Miller's narrow holdings; concurrence expresses concern about de facto LWOP outcomes |
| Whether courts must treat de facto life terms (very long terms of years) as LWOP for juveniles | Defendant: Miller’s reasoning applies to de facto LWOP and requires meaningful parole opportunities | State: distinction between explicit LWOP and life term with parole eligibility is permissible under current Tennessee precedent | Court: Majority rejects expansion; concurrence notes other jurisdictions have extended Miller to de facto LWOP but declines to adopt that view |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery impose a formal fact-finding requirement at sentencing | Defendant: Miller requires consideration of youth and circumstances before imposing disproportionate life sentences | State: Miller did not impose rigid procedural mandates, only substantive limits | Court: Miller requires consideration of youth but does not impose a specific formal fact-finding procedure; Tennessee procedures held sufficient in this case |
| Whether consecutive life sentences for juveniles comport with Supreme Court teachings | Defendant: consecutive life terms amplify the de facto LWOP problem and may violate Eighth Amendment | State: sentencing procedures can justify life terms; but consecutive alignment may raise constitutional concerns | Court: Previous panels reversed consecutive LWOP in some cases; here concurrence warns against consecutive life terms though result affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment; courts must account for youth and its attendant characteristics)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule applicable retroactively; life without parole disproportionate except for rare irreparably corrupt juveniles)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles are constitutionally different from adults; death penalty for juveniles prohibited)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; emphasizes diminished culpability and greater capacity for reform)