State of Arizona, Respondent v. Gregory Nidez Valencia Jr., Petitioner; State of Arizona, Respond — Bolick, J…

Summary

Justice Bolick's concurrence joins the Court's opinion, which he says is compelled by controlling Supreme Court decisions concerning juvenile life-without-parole sentences. He explains Arizona's existing consideration of youth and maturity in sentencing, but expresses serious concerns that the newer doctrine retroactively requires difficult determinations about whether a juvenile offender was irreparably corrupt. He also argues that the Supreme Court's prediction that most juvenile murders reflect transient immaturity is speculative and should not control individualized sentencing.