TRENTON (CN) — The New Jersey Supreme Court pushed prosecutors on Tuesday to defend the constitutionality of a mandate that sends juveniles convicted of felony murder to prison for 30 years.
Fighting the scheme is James Comer who was 17 years old in 2000 when one of his accomplices to four armed robberies shot and killed a man. Comer was tried as an adult and convicted on all counts pertaining to the robberies, including the one for felony murder.
Initially Comer was sentenced to 75 years in prison, with eligibility for parole after 68 years, which is more time than his accomplice who pulled the trigger received.
That sentence would have kept him in prison until he was at least 85 years old, but the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned it to comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which held it cruel and unusual punishment to mandate life sentences without parole for juveniles rather than weighing individual punishments on a case-by-case basis.
But even with sentence reduced to the 30-year mandatory minimum imposed by a state statute, Comer, now 38, says any mandatory prison sentence for a juvenile is unconstitutional. Back in May 2020, an intermediate appeals court shot him down.
“We are not arguing that any mandatory minimum for any defendant is unconstitutional,” defense attorney Lawrence Lustberg argued for Comer. “This is a mandatory minimum that applies to juveniles.”
Justice Lee Solomon pressed Lustberg on whether he was also challenging the state statute that allows juveniles 15 years old and up to be tried as adults.
“Aren't you basically suggesting that the juvenile waiver statute is therefore unconstitutional as well,” asked Solomon.
Lustberg again stressed that unconstitutionality lies solely in the mandatory sentencing, and that he is not arguing that juveniles cannot be tried as adults.
Lustberg, with Gibbons Law, further emphasized that 30 years is too long a sentence to be mandatory, especially when 95% of juveniles in prison are rehabilitated far before that 30-year mark.
Natalie Kraner, arguing as a friend to the court, referenced nine juveniles who committed serious offenses and were released from prison after the Miller decision, and how they have integrated back into society as lawyers, teachers and business owners.
“Every single one of them has a remarkable story of reform and redemption,” said Kraner with Lowenstein Sandler. “And their stories are living proof that young people who commit serious offenses are capable of change if given the chance.”
Arguing for the state, Frank Ducoat assured the panel that Comer already got his relief under Miller when his sentence was lessened.
“Following the robust resentencing hearing, the judge engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the Miller factors and gave Comer a sentence 38 years shorter than he originally received,” said Ducoat. “So when Comer is just 47 years old, he will have what the Eighth Amendment and the state constitution guarantee him: hope, not hopelessness. Reconciliation with society, not permanent isolation from it, and a chance for a fulfilling life outside of prison.”
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner posed a hypothetical to Ducoat.
“Would you see any problem if the legislature tomorrow increased the penalty for a felony murder to 40 years,” asked Rabner.
Ducoat responded that he would not have a problem with 40 years, but that it could get dicey if it went much higher than that.
“I would say no, and certainly, as the number gets higher, there is more of a concern because eventually you are going to get to a number where the sentence is the functional equivalent of life without parole,” said Ducoat.
After arguments, Lustberg was hopeful that the court would side with him and find the 30-year sentence to be unconstitutional.
“Such a sentence is unsupported by the science, which shows that the juvenile brain is not fully developed, and cannot be justified by the purposes of sentencing,” Lustberg said in an email. “I am hopeful that the New Jersey Supreme Court will join its many sister states in striking down this draconian statute, which does not even give a judge the choice to impose a more humane and appropriate sentence.”
Ducoat did not immediately respond to email seeking comment.
The court also heard arguments Tuesday for State v. Zarate, which will decide if the 2015 statute that bumped the allowable age to be tried as an adult to 15 should be retroactively applied to defendants such as James Zarate, who murdered and dismembered a teenage girl when he was 14 years old.
Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Anne Patterson, Barry Albin, Faustino Fernandez-Vina and Fabiana Pierre-Louis rounded out the Tuesday panel.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
DOJ announces new crime gun intelligence center in Chicago April 17, 2024 -
