Malvo v. State

Summary

The court held that Malvo must be resentenced because his pre-Miller sentencing record is ambiguous as to whether the sentencing judge determined that his crimes reflected permanent incorrigibility rather than transient immaturity. Although a discretionary sentencing system generally satisfies the procedural requirement for juvenile homicide sentencing, the sentencing judge here acted before the controlling constitutional standards existed and may not have applied them. The court further held that JUVRA does not eliminate the need for resentencing in this case because Malvo received multiple consecutive life-without-parole sentences whose constitutional legality and aggregation remain unresolved.