827 S.E.2d 148
S.C.2019Background
- At 13, Conrad Slocumb kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and shot a teacher; he pled guilty to CSC-1st and received 30 years.
- At 16 (after a 45-minute escape), he raped and robbed another woman; after trial he received multiple consecutive sentences, producing an aggregate 130-year term (including life without parole on one count later vacated and resentenced).
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham (prohibiting LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders), Slocumb obtained federal habeas relief on one burglary LWOP count and was resentenced; he sought relief from the full 130-year aggregate as a de facto life sentence.
- Slocumb argued Graham and Miller require protection from de facto life (very long term-of-years) aggregate sentences for juveniles; the State emphasized Slocumb’s violent post-conviction conduct and poor prison record and argued Graham does not extend to aggregate term-of-years sentences.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged the arguable merit of extending Graham/Miller to de facto life terms but declined to rule beyond the Supreme Court’s explicit holdings, and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an aggregate term-of-years that effectively sentences a juvenile to die in prison (de facto life) violates the Eighth Amendment under Graham/Miller | Slocumb: Graham’s rationale bars de facto life sentences; his 130-year aggregate denies a meaningful opportunity for release | State: Graham prohibits only de jure life-without-parole; aggregate consecutive terms are lawful and reflect multiple crimes and legislatively authorized ranges | Denied: Court held Graham’s explicit categorical bar is limited to de jure LWOP; it will not extend federal Eighth Amendment protections to de facto life sentences absent Supreme Court direction |
| Whether lower courts may extend Supreme Court constitutional protections beyond the Court’s holdings | Slocumb: the rationale of Graham/Miller supports extension | State: lower courts must follow Supreme Court holdings, not general dicta; extension is for the Supreme Court or legislature | Held for State: the court refused to expand federal constitutional protections beyond Supreme Court precedent |
| Whether Slocumb’s case is factually analogous to Graham (single nonhomicide de jure LWOP) | Slocumb: aggregate duration renders his sentence equivalent to LWOP | State: Slocumb committed multiple violent offenses at different times (including shooting a victim), so Graham is distinguishable | Held for State: factual differences (multiple crimes, multiple victims, violent conduct) weigh against applying Graham here |
| Appropriate forum/remedy for addressing de facto life for juveniles | Slocumb: courts should apply Graham’s spirit; seek resentencing/release opportunity | State: policy changes are for legislature; courts must follow Supreme Court rulings | Held: Court declines to craft new constitutional rule and encourages legislative action; denied relief to Slocumb |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juveniles cannot be sentenced to death; juveniles are constitutionally different for sentencing)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (Eighth Amendment forbids LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory LWOP for juveniles convicted of homicide violates the Eighth Amendment; Miller’s reasoning implicates life sentences broadly)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller announced a new substantive rule and applies retroactively)
- Bunch v. United States, 685 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.) (refused to extend Graham to consecutive term-of-years that aggregate to de facto life; urged Supreme Court to clarify)
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (general expressions in opinions must be read in context; holdings control later cases)