Malvo v. State

Summary

The court held that Malvo’s pre-existing discretionary sentencing regime did not eliminate the need to determine whether his juvenile homicide offenses reflected transient immaturity or permanent incorrigibility under the later-developed Eighth Amendment framework. Because the 2006 sentencing record was ambiguous and the sentencing judge could not have applied that framework, Malvo was entitled to resentencing. The court further held that the Juvenile Restoration Act did not, on this record involving consecutive life-without-parole sentences, eliminate the need for resentencing.