United States v. Riley Briones, Jr.
929 F.3d 1057
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 1994, 17‑year‑old Riley Briones Jr. drove gang members to a Subway robbery during which an accomplice shot and killed the employee; Briones was convicted of felony murder and other gang offenses and originally received a mandatory life sentence without parole (LWOP) in 1997.
- Briones had a history of childhood abuse, early substance exposure, gang leadership, and serious gang-related conduct; he also served nearly 18 years with a spotless disciplinary record, educational attainment, steady work in prison, marriage, and rehabilitative programming prior to resentencing.
- After Miller v. Alabama (2012) held mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional, Briones’s sentence was vacated and he was resentenced in 2016; the district court reimposed life (effectively LWOP) after brief remarks referencing both the crime’s severity and some mitigating youth and rehabilitation factors.
- The government conceded the original mandatory sentence was flawed; the district court calculated the Guidelines, acknowledged youth and mitigation, but emphasized Briones’s leadership role and the planned, brutal nature of the murder in reimposing life.
- The Ninth Circuit majority vacated and remanded, holding the district court’s reasoning did not show a meaningful Miller inquiry (particularly into post‑incarceration rehabilitation), while a dissent argued the court adequately considered Miller factors and imposed a permissible sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller/Montgomery required a resentencing that meaningfully assesses youth and capacity for change before imposing LWOP | Briones: sentencing court must perform a forward‑looking Miller analysis and credit post‑incarceration rehabilitation; LWOP should be rare | Government/District Court: considered Miller factors and rehabilitation; severity of crime supports LWOP | Court: vacated and remanded — record does not show meaningful Miller inquiry into whether Briones is irreparably incorrigible, especially post‑incarceration conduct must be considered |
| Proper role of post‑incarceration conduct in Miller analysis | Briones: long, disciplinary‑free incarceration and demonstrable rehabilitation are critical evidence of capacity to change | Government: urged consideration of original facts and what prior judge would have done; questioned weight of post‑incarceration statements | Court: post‑incarceration conduct is critical; courts must evaluate whether defendant has changed since the crime (Pete cited) |
| Whether starting with Guidelines creates impermissible momentum toward LWOP in juvenile cases | Briones: Guidelines can impede Miller’s requirement that LWOP be rare | Government: Guidelines calculation is required and compatible with Miller if applied consistently | Court: district courts must begin with Guidelines but apply them consistent with Miller; cannot presume Guidelines are reasonable in juvenile LWOP cases |
| Sufficiency of district court explanation on resentencing | Briones: brief remarks focused on crime severity and did not explain reaching LWOP under Miller | District Court/Gov: explicit statements show consideration of youth, abuse, and good conduct; no explicit finding of permanent incorrigibility required | Court: explanation insufficient to permit meaningful review; remand required for fuller Miller engagement |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencing must account for youth and attendant characteristics)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller’s rule is substantive and retroactive; LWOP permissible only for the rare juvenile whose crime reflects permanent incorrigibility)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles cannot be executed; children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars LWOP for non‑homicide juvenile offenders; emphasizes differences of youth)
- United States v. Pete, 819 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (post‑conviction rehabilitation evidence and updated evaluations can be critical to Miller resentencing analysis)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must calculate Guidelines and explain sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review)