State v. Riley, 315 Conn. 637

Ackeem Riley received a total effective sentence of 100 years for a mass drive-by shooting killing a 16-year-old and injuring two others.
Sentencing proceeded after a hearing with a presentence investigation report and arguments from counsel; Riley did not testify.
The sentencing court considered the crime’s nature, victims, family background, prior arrests, and Riley’s youth in fashioning the sentence.
The sentence is divided 60 years for murder and 20 years for each attempted murder, run consecutively, totaling 100 years.
Connecticut’s sentencing statute and practice provide individualized sentencing, which the dissent argues Miller v. Alabama already requires for juveniles.
The majority’s reasoning is challenged as extending Miller beyond its limited scope to discretionary schemes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller v. Alabama applies to Connecticut’s discretionary sentencing scheme	Riley: Miller applies only to mandatory life-without-parole, not discretionary schemes	State: Miller applies more broadly to juvenile sentencing considerations (context implied by majority)	Miller does not apply to Connecticut's discretionary scheme

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles; scope restricted to mandatory schemes)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (execution of juvenile offenders prohibited)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenses prohibited)