State v. McCleese — dissenting

Summary

Justice Ecker dissents from the conclusion that retroactive parole eligibility adequately remedies the defendant's unconstitutional juvenile sentence. The dissent reasons that the defendant was entitled to an individualized sentencing hearing addressing youth-related diminished culpability, and that parole eligibility addresses rehabilitation rather than the sentencing court's failure to determine a proportionate sentence. Justice Palmer, concurring, agrees with the judgment but would reserve for another case whether fundamental-fairness principles arise under federal or state due process clauses.