The Indiana Supreme Court is evaluating juvenile sentencing standards using the case of a Gary man serving a 110-year prison term for two 1996 East Chicago murders he committed at age 16.
The state's high court last week heard oral arguments in an appeal following the denial of post-conviction relief to McKinley Kelly, now 45, that seeks to adjust his consecutive 55-year sentence for each murder on the basis that the combined prison term is a de facto life sentence for a juvenile offender that should be prohibited by the proportional sentencing requirement of the Indiana Constitution.
In 2017, Kelly failed to persuade 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reduce his sentence under a then-recent U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders.
Katherine Province, Kelly's attorney, said that decision does not prevent the Indiana Supreme Court from interpreting Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution to recognize that juvenile offenders cannot be subject to life sentences in Indiana prisons.
"Article 1, Section 16 expressly states that sentences need to be proportional to the offense. That's something that doesn't exist in the United States Constitution. This court has said that Article 1, Section 16, kind of sweeps more broadly and goes beyond the 8th Amendment in that respect. So I think that supports a conclusion that Article 1, Section 16, should provide more rights than what the 8th Amendment already does," Province said.
According to theIndiana Department of Correction, Kelly will be eligible for release, assuming good behavior, in 2048, when he is 69 years old.
Chief Justice Rush and Justice Derek Molter questioned during oral arguments where to set the line of what constitutes a juvenile life sentence, in part because studies show incarcerated individuals tend to have a shorter life expectancy than people living outside of prisons.
They also suggested Kelly consider instead taking advantage of an Indiana sentencing modification statute that permits juvenile offenders to ask a judge to reduce a murder sentence without the consent of the prosecuting attorney after the offender has served 20 years in prison.
Province argued a clear constitutional standard would be better since the modification statute does not include a guaranteed hearing, the right to counsel, and only can be requested a single time.
"I can imagine a scenario where a juvenile offender who has served 20 or 30 years in prison goes back to the trial court and demonstrates that he's effectively been rehabilitated through education, through programming, through good behavior — and presents evidence to the court to that effect," Province said.
"The court doesn't have to grant a modification at that point, right? It would just be reviewed under an abuse of discretion. So the court could say, 'I commend you for your efforts since you've been incarcerated. But the fact remains you committed a murder, or multiple murders, so I'm not going to modify your sentence.'"
On the other side, Deputy Attorney General Ian McLean urged the five justices to leave intact the June 6 Indiana Court of Appeals ruling declining Kelly's request for a reduced sentence after Kelly's successive petition for post-conviction relief also failed at the Lake Superior Court.
"Is a 110-year aggregate sentence grossly disproportionate to shock the conscience of Hoosiers when the defendant shot two young men to death? I think the answer to that is no. That's an appropriate application of Article I, Section 16," McLean said. "There's no persuasive reason to entertain these claims any further and this court should deny transfer."
A Supreme Court ruling is expected in coming months.
© Copyright 2024, nwitimes.com, Munster, IN