State v. Moore (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 557
Ohio2016Background
- In 2001, 15‑year‑old Brandon Moore committed a series of violent nonhomicide crimes (robberies, kidnappings, multiple rapes) and was convicted on multiple counts and firearm specifications.
- The trial court imposed maximum consecutive terms; after multiple appeals and remands his aggregate sentence totaled 112 years.
- Under the State’s interpretation of R.C. 2929.20(C)(5), Moore would not be eligible to seek judicial release until after serving 77 years (age ~92), well beyond his actuarial life expectancy.
- Moore sought delayed reconsideration in the court of appeals invoking Graham v. Florida (2010); that court denied the motion as untimely and not showing extraordinary circumstances.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review to decide whether Graham’s prohibition of life‑without‑parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders extends to term‑of‑years sentences that exceed an offender’s life expectancy, and whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graham’s bar on life‑without‑parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders extends to fixed term‑of‑years sentences that exceed life expectancy | Graham forbids any sentence that functionally removes a juvenile’s meaningful opportunity for release during his life; 77 years before eligibility is unconstitutional | Graham is limited to literal life‑without‑parole sentences; long consecutive fixed terms are not "directly on point" and do not automatically violate the Eighth Amendment | Court held Graham’s categorical rule covers term‑of‑years sentences that are the functional equivalent of life without parole when imposed on juvenile nonhomicide offenders; Moore’s 112‑year sentence (77 years to eligibility) violated the Eighth Amendment |
| Whether multiple consecutive fixed terms for multiple offenses fall outside Graham’s protection | Number or gravity of nonhomicide offenses cannot overcome diminished juvenile culpability; Graham applies categorically to all juvenile nonhomicide offenders regardless of multiplicity of offenses | A juvenile convicted of multiple nonhomicide offenses can receive aggregate long terms; Graham addressed single‑sentence life without parole and did not analyze consecutive fixed‑term regimes | Court held Graham’s protection is not limited to single‑offense cases; multiplicity does not evade the Eighth Amendment bar when the aggregate sentence denies a meaningful opportunity for release |
| Whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying Moore’s delayed application for reconsideration under App.R. 14(B) / 26(A) | Graham (and related juvenile sentencing precedents) constituted on‑point new law and retroactive substantive rule; extraordinary circumstances justified delayed reconsideration | The motion was untimely and Graham/Miller were not directly on point; denial was within the court’s discretion | Court held the court of appeals abused its discretion: Graham was a controlling, on‑point substantive rule that warranted delayed reconsideration and retroactive application |
| Remedy and retroactivity: what relief is required | Sentence must be vacated and case remanded for resentencing giving Moore a meaningful opportunity for release earlier than his life expectancy | (State resisted) | Court vacated the 112‑year sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with Graham (meaningful opportunity for release during expected lifespan) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment forbids life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires a meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide is unconstitutional; youth is a mitigating hallmark)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed under age 18; juveniles are categorically different)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that must be given retroactive effect on collateral review)
- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principle)
- Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987) (recognizes functional equivalence between life without parole and term‑of‑years exceeding life expectancy for certain penological considerations)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (2012) (California Supreme Court: term‑of‑years with parole eligibility beyond life expectancy violates Graham)
- Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015) (Florida Supreme Court: Graham applies to functional life terms; requires review mechanism for juveniles)