Minnesota

Juvenile Resentencing

In Miller v. Alabama,1 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that juvenile offenders are constitutionally different from adult offenders and, accordingly, prohibited mandatory sentencing of juveniles to life without the possibility of parole (hereinafter “JLWOP”). The Court found mandatory JLWOP is “almost always unconstitutional” under the Eighth Amendment for all but the “rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” 2 This decision in Miller, which the Court later held to be retroactive, set in motion the resentencing of roughly 2,500 individuals mandatorily sentenced to JLWOP across the U.S., with approximately 40 of those individuals in Minnesota. In May 2023, the Minnesota Legislature brought the state in compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), through the passage of the Minnesota Statute § 244.049.3

Two significant features of Minn. Stat. § 244.049 are (1) the creation of a Supervised Release Board, composed of experts in juvenile development and rehabilitation, to hear parole cases of individuals sentenced as juveniles to lengthy sentences, and (2) the extension eligibility for supervised release to individuals serving lengthy sentences for offenses they committed as juveniles.

The first major feature is the creation of the Supervised Board, which is tasked with the responsibility of making release and final discharge decisions for eligible cases. As authorized under the statute, the Board is composed of individuals with specialized knowledge in either criminal justice or neurological development of juveniles. Specifically, when reviewing cases involving individuals who were juveniles at the time of their offense, the Board must consist of four political appointees, the commissioner of corrections, and two neurodevelopmental experts. Those experts are to have “an academic degree in neurology, psychology, or a comparable field and who have expertise in the neurological development of juveniles.” While the Board adheres to similar processes as the preexisting parole system, they do so with added expert knowledge, with a consideration of relevant science, and with the benefit of a development report, prepared by a qualified mental health professional, which addresses the inmate’s cognitive, emotional, and social maturity to aid in their decision-making process.

The second major feature is extending eligibility for supervised release to individuals who were under eighteen at the time of the offense and are serving mandatory life sentences. The statute provides three delineations for minimum terms:

1) An offender who has served a minimum of 15 years is eligible for supervised release where they: (i) received a determinate sentence with a period of imprisonment of more than 15 years; (ii) received separate, consecutive, executed determinate sentences for two or more crimes that include combined terms of imprisonment that total more than 15 years and do not involve separate victims; or (iii) were sentenced to one mandatory life sentence that is not consecutive to any other sentence involving a separate victim and to which no other sentence involving a separate victim is consecutive;

2) An offender who has served a minimum of 20 years is eligible for supervised release where they: (i) received separate, consecutive, executed determinate sentences for two or more crimes that include combined terms of imprisonment that total more than 20 years and involved separate victims; (ii) were sentenced to one mandatory life sentence that is consecutive to any determinate sentence involving a separate victim or to which a determinate sentence involving a separate victim is consecutive; or (iii) were sentenced to two consecutive mandatory life sentences; or

3) An offender who has served a minimum of 30 years is eligible for supervised release where they were sentenced to three or more consecutive life sentences.

1 Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)

2 Other relevant cases from the United States Supreme Court regarding juvenile sentencing/culpability are Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).

3 The statute can be read here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/244.049.

Youth in detention, correctional and/or residential facility: 378 (2021) Rate per 100,000: 62 (2021) https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/42-youth-residing-in-juvenile-detention-correctional-and-or-residential-facilities?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/2/2-52/false/2048,1729,871,573,36,867,133,18,17,14/any/319,17599