State v. Hardman.dissent ( 2017 )

Cite as 2017 Ark. 259
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-17-614
Opinion Delivered: September 21, 2017
STATE OF ARKANSAS
PETITIONER APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 60CR-00-1457]
BRANDON HARDMAN HONORABLE WENDELL LEE
RESPONDENT GRIFFEN, JUDGE
DISSENTING OPINION.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
The circuit court has ruled the Arkansas General Assembly’s adoption of the
“Wyoming remedy” is unconstitutional and ordered new sentencing hearings before a jury
for defendants who were sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed as juveniles.
The majority of this court has chosen not to address the ruling under this procedural posture,
I dissent.
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held, “[g]iving Miller retroactive
effect, moreover, does not require States to relitigate sentences . . . in every case where a
juvenile offender received mandatory life without parole. A state may remedy a Miller
violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than
resentencing them.” 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court
cited the Wyoming legislature, which affords juveniles parole eligibility after 25 years, as an
example of a sufficient remedy to a Miller error. Id. The Arkansas General Assembly
statutorily provided defendants in Arkansas the “Wyoming remedy” when it enacted the
Cite as 2017 Ark. 259
Fair Sentencing of Minors Act (FSMA), Act 539 of 2017. As I believe compliance with
FSMA is the correct procedure, I would grant the writ.
WOMACK, J., joins.
2