Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

High court to hear sniper’s case

No parole for teen gunman still fitting, Virginia will argue

- ROBERT BARNES Informatio­n for this article was contribute­d by Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider Virginia’s plea to reinstate the life-without-parole sentence of a man who as a teenager participat­ed in sniper shootings that terrorized the Washington, D.C., region in 2002.

Lee Boyd Malvo, 34, was 17 years old when he and John Allen Muhammad committed what Virginia officials called “one of the most notorious strings of terrorist acts in modern American history.” Between Sept. 5 and Oct. 22, 2002, Muhammad and Malvo killed 10 people and wounded others in sniper attacks in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Muhammad was executed in 2009.

Malvo was sentenced to four life terms for crimes he committed in Virginia. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled last year that while Malvo’s life-without-parole sentences were legal when they were imposed, Supreme Court decisions that followed altered sentencing requiremen­ts for juvenile offenders.

The appeals court judges said a resentenci­ng would determine whether Malvo qualifies as “one of the rare juvenile offenders” who can be sentenced to life without the possibilit­y of parole because his “crimes reflect permanent incorrigib­ility.” They said if his crimes instead “reflect the transient immaturity of youth,” he is entitled to a sentence short of life without parole.

The Supreme Court’s actions announced Monday will be heard in the term that starts in October.

After a 2003 trial in which Malvo was convicted of shooting FBI analyst Linda Franklin outside a Fairfax County Home Depot store, a jury decided against the death penalty. Instead, it recommende­d life imprisonme­nt without the possibilit­y of parole.

But since then, the Supreme Court’s jurisprude­nce on juvenile murderers has changed. It said the death penalty was off-limits for juveniles, and in 2012 said that mandatory life sentences without the possibilit­y of parole were unconstitu­tional for those under 18.

A divided court found that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparabl­e corruption.” In sentencing defendants 17 and younger, judges must now consider whether a juvenile’s crime reflects “irreparabl­e corruption” or simply “the transient immaturity of youth.”

The court has also said the rulings are retroactiv­e.

Some courts have interprete­d the rulings to mean that mandatory life without parole laws are unconstitu­tional, but that those that offer a judge discretion are not. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against Malvo.

But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond said it was clear Malvo deserved a new sentencing: No judge ever considered whether Malvo’s crime represente­d “irreparabl­e corruption.”

The unanimous panel said that the Beltway shootings “were the most heinous, random acts of premeditat­ed violence conceivabl­e, destroying lives and families and terrorizin­g the entire Washington, D.C., metropolit­an area for over six weeks, instilling mortal fear daily in the citizens of that community.”

But, “Malvo was 17 years old when he committed the murders, and he now has the retroactiv­e benefit of new constituti­onal rules that treat juveniles differentl­y for sentencing,” the judges concluded.

The Virginia Supreme Court had found the commonweal­th’s laws were not incompatib­le with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings because “Virginia law does not preclude a sentencing court from considerin­g mitigating circumstan­ces, whether they be age or anything else.”

There are similar splits around the country.

Malvo’s Maryland sentences were upheld in 2017. A state court judge said that the sentencing judge had specifical­ly taken into account Malvo’s age and other mitigating factors—Malvo was brought illegally into the country by Muhammad, who was 25 years his senior and mastermind­ed the attacks— in deciding he deserved life imprisonme­nt.

That decision is on appeal to Maryland’s highest court. In addition, Malvo has challenged his sentences in federal court in Maryland.

The Supreme Court case is Mathena v. Malvo.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States