Karen Howell v. Tennessee

Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony murder in 1998 and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Petitioner was 17 at the time of the offenses; the sentencing court found that she had a “fair to guarded” chance of rehabilitation; and she did not kill or intend to kill the victims. The court nevertheless imposed the maximum-allowable sentence of life without parole. The court did not consider Petitioner’s youth in setting her sentence. Petitioner requested a resentencing in light of this Court’s holding in Montgomery v. Louisiana that the Eighth Amendment forbids sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole unless “rehabilitation is impossible.” 136 S. Ct. 718, 733 (2016). The courts below rejected Petitioner’s request, holding that her sentence was lawful because she was permitted to present mitigation evidence of youth (even though that evidence was not actually considered) and because the sentencing court had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence. This holding deepened an extensive divide among the lower courts regarding the scope of the Eighth Amendment protections articulated in Montgomery. This petition presents the following question: Whether a juvenile facing a sentence of life without parole must receive an individualized sentencing hearing at which the court considers the offender’s youth and potential for rehabilitation, to ensure that she receives that sentence only if she is one of “the rare juvenile offender[s] whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id. at 734.