Malvo v. State

Summary

The court held that Malvo must be resentenced because his preexisting discretionary sentencing proceeding occurred before the constitutional standards governing juvenile life-without-parole sentences were established, and the record is ambiguous as to whether the sentencing judge found him constitutionally eligible for that punishment. The court further held that the Juvenile Restoration Act does not eliminate the need for resentencing in a case involving multiple consecutive juvenile life-without-parole sentences imposed before those standards were announced. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, leaving the resulting sentence to the sentencing court's discretion.