Mathena v. Malvo
Issues
Did Montgomery v. Louisiana expand the scope of the Miller rule—which retroactively applied to cases on collateral review the holding that mandatory life-imprisonment-without-parole sentences for juvenile homicide offenders are unconstitutional—so that it applies to both mandatory and discretionary sentencing schemes by requiring sentencing judges to consider a juvenile defendant’s youth during sentencing?
This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred when it granted respondent Lee Boyd Malvo’s habeas corpus petition to reconsider his life-imprisonment-without-parole sentence, yet declined to decide whether Malvo’s sentence was mandatory or discretionary. Petitioner warden Randall Mathena argues that Malvo’s sentence must stand because the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama expressly limited availability of habeas relief to juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under mandatory sentencing schemes, and because the precedent upon which the Supreme Court based that opinion does not support expanding the rule to discretionary sentencing schemes. Malvo counters that he should be resentenced because the Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana—extending Miller retroactively to cases on collateral review—requires sentencing judges to take juveniles’ youth into account during sentencing, even if the sentence occurred before Miller. Malvo further contends that even if he were sentenced pursuant to a “discretionary” sentencing scheme, his life sentence violates Miller because the sentencing judge failed to consider, on account of his juvenile status, his lessened moral blameworthiness and greater capacity for change, therefore entitling him to resentencing. The outcome of this case will affect how the criminal justice system treats juveniles and victims, whether the system will preserve the distinction between discretionary and mandatory sentencing schemes.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
In the fall of 2002, John Allen Muhammad and 17-year-old Lee Malvo carried out the “D.C. Sniper” shootings—a series of sniper-rifle shootings in the greater Washington. D.C. area in which the pair murdered twelve individuals and injured six others. Malvo v.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Lee Malvo, the D.C. Sniper, New York Times (Mar. 18, 2019).
- Alexa Gardieri, SCOTUS Agrees to Hear D.C. Sniper Case, US News & World Report (Mar. 18, 2019).
- Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, SCOTUS Agrees to Hear D.C. Sniper Case, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 18, 2019).