State v. Mullins
State v. Mullins, 2025 UT 2 (Durrant, C.J.)
Criminal
The Utah Supreme Court held:
- Juvenile Defendant’s sentence was unconstitutional because the judge’s comments raised meaningful ambiguity about the appropriateness of the juvenile life without parole sentence (JLWOP).
- Justice Hagen authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Pohlman joined. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal caselaw on the Eighth Amendment, instead interpreting it to mean a sentencing judge must have discretion to impose a non-JLWOP sentence based on an individualized assessment of the unique circumstances presented in the case.
- Practice tip: For motions brought under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, the regulated event determining which version of the rule applies is the raising of a 22(e) claim, not the filing of a 22(e) motion.
- Practice tip: A sentence of JLWOP is unconstitutional where the sentencing court affirmatively finds the defendant could change.