State v. Kelliher

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCSC-77
No. 442PA20
Filed 17 June 2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JAMES RYAN KELLIHER
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision
of the Court of Appeals, 273 N.C. App. 616 (2020), reversing a judgment entered 13
December 2018 by Judge Carl R. Fox in Superior Court, Cumberland County. On 10
March 2021, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s conditional petition for
discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court on 10
November 2021.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Kimberly N. Callahan, Special Deputy
Attorney General, for the State-appellant.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.
Lisa Grafstein, Susan H. Pollitt, and Luke Woollard for Disability Rights North
Carolina, amicus curiae
Christopher J. Heaney, Emily A. Gibson, and Margaret P. Teich for North
Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.
EARLS, Justice.
¶1 When a child commits a murder, the crime is a searing tragedy and profound
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
societal failure. Even a child has agency, of course; we do not absolve a child of all
culpability for his or her criminal conduct. But there are different considerations at
issue when sentencing a juvenile offender as compared to an adult criminal
defendant. “[C]hildren are different” than adults in ways that matter for these
purposes. State v. James, 371 N.C. 77, 96 (2018) (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.
460, 480 (2012)). A child’s actions necessarily reflect that child’s “chronological age
and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to
appreciate risks and consequences.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 477. A child’s actions also
reflect the “environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually
extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.” Id. What a child’s actions
do not reflect, in the vast majority of cases, is that child’s permanent and fundamental
depravity, or what the United States Supreme Court has described as “irreparable
corruption.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005). Given these unique
attributes that define childhood, both the North Carolina and United States
Constitutions impose limits on the use of our most severe punishments for juvenile
offenders, even for those children who have committed the most egregious crimes
imaginable.
¶2 On 7 August 2001, James Ryan Kelliher participated in the killing of Eric
Carpenter and his pregnant girlfriend, Kelsea Helton. Kelliher was seventeen years
old. At the time he was indicted, juveniles were still subject to the death penalty, and
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
the State indicated its intent to try Kelliher capitally. Kelliher pleaded guilty to
various charges including two counts of first-degree murder, for which he was ordered
to serve two consecutive sentences of life without parole. After the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the trial
court conducted a resentencing hearing, during which the court expressly found that
Kelliher was “a low risk to society” who was “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.”
Nevertheless, the trial court ordered Kelliher to serve two consecutive sentences of
life with the possibility of parole. Each of these sentences requires Kelliher to serve
twenty-five years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. As a result, because
the court ordered Kelliher to complete his first life sentence before beginning his
second life sentence, Kelliher must serve fifty years in prison before initially
becoming parole eligible at the age of sixty-seven.
¶3 On appeal, Kelliher argued that because the trial court found him to be
“neither incorrigible nor irredeemable,” it violated the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North Carolina
Constitution to sentence him to what he contended was a de facto sentence of life
without parole. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals agreed that Kelliher’s
sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. State v. Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. 616, 644
(2020). After the Court of Appeals issued its decision, but prior to briefing and oral
argument at this Court, the United States Supreme Court decided Jones v.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Mississippi, another case examining the scope of the Eighth Amendment in the
context of juvenile sentencing. 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021). In addition to arguing that the
Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Kelliher’s consecutive life with parole
sentences implicated the Eighth Amendment, the State now asserts that Jones
completely undermines Kelliher’s federal and state constitutional claims.
¶4 After careful review, we hold that it violates both the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North Carolina
Constitution to sentence a juvenile homicide offender who has been determined to be
“neither incorrigible nor irredeemable” to life without parole. Furthermore, we
conclude that any sentence or combination of sentences which, considered together,
requires a juvenile offender to serve more than forty years in prison before becoming
eligible for parole is a de facto sentence of life without parole within the meaning of
article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution because it deprives the
juvenile of a genuine opportunity to demonstrate he or she has been rehabilitated and
to establish a meaningful life outside of prison. Thus, Kelliher’s sentence, which
requires him to serve fifty years in prison before becoming eligible for parole, is a de
facto sentence of life without parole under article I, section 27. Because the trial court
affirmatively found that Kelliher was “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable,” he
could not constitutionally receive this sentence. Accordingly, we modify the decision
of the Court of Appeals and affirm.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
I. Background
¶5 Like many juveniles who commit criminal offenses, Kelliher experienced a
tumultuous childhood. He was physically abused by his father and began using
alcohol and marijuana regularly at an early age. He attempted suicide by overdose at
age 10. He dropped out of school after ninth grade. By the time he was seventeen,
Kelliher was generally “under the influence all day” from substances including
ecstasy, acid, psilocybin, cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol. He stole and robbed people
to support his drug use.
¶6 At some point, Kelliher began to “hang out with a guy named . . . [Joshua]
Ballard.” The two would regularly “drink and do drugs” together. Over the summer
of 2001, the pair discussed robbing Eric Carpenter, who was “known to sell a large
amount of drugs including cocaine and marijuana and would have a large amount of
money.” Ballard told Kelliher they were “going to have to kill Eric Carpenter” after
robbing him because Carpenter would know their identities and be able to implicate
them in the crime. Their plan was to arrange to purchase drugs from Carpenter
behind a local furniture store. Kelliher would drive Ballard to the furniture store;
Ballard would approach Carpenter to complete the transaction, shoot him, steal
whatever drugs and money he had on his person and in his vehicle, and then flee
alongside Kelliher. Kelliher offered to lend Ballard his .38 caliber pistol.
¶7 After arranging the drug buy, Ballard and Kelliher drove to the furniture store
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
in a pickup truck.1 However, at the furniture store, they encountered a law
enforcement officer in a marked vehicle driving around the parking lot. Carpenter
pulled his vehicle next to Kelliher’s and told Kelliher to follow him to another location.
Eventually, Carpenter led Ballard and Kelliher to his apartment, where they were
joined by Carpenter’s girlfriend, Kelsea Helton, who was “five[ or] six months”
pregnant. According to Kelliher’s later testimony, at some point Ballard “pulled the
weapon” and “got both [Carpenter and Helton] down . . . on their knees facing a wall.”
As Kelliher continued to “gather[ ]” drugs from around Carpenter’s apartment, “he
heard two shots, saw two flashes.” Kelliher and Ballard fled the apartment and ran
back to Kelliher’s vehicle. They then spent time using cocaine and marijuana they
stole from the apartment and drinking liquor in a park. Carpenter and Helton died
of gunshot wounds to the backs of their heads.
A. Initial trial and resentencing
¶8 Kelliher was arrested two days after the shootings. On 25 March 2002, he was
indicted by a Cumberland County Grand Jury for two counts of first-degree murder,
two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and one count of conspiracy to
commit robbery. On 5 June 2002, the Superior Court, Cumberland County conducted
a Rule 24 hearing during which the State averred that it “ha[d] evidence of one or
1 A third person was also present in Kelliher’s vehicle, although he did not have “any
role” in the crime “other than just literally being a warm body in the back of the truck.”
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
more aggravating factors which would call for the imposition of the death penalty.”
Before the case came to trial, Kelliher pleaded guilty to all charges; in exchange, the
District Attorney “exercise[d] his discretion . . . [to] declare the murder cases to be
non-capital.”2 The trial court imposed two consecutive sentences of life without parole
for the first-degree murder convictions and term-of-years sentences for the robbery
and conspiracy convictions, to be run concurrently. Kelliher did not appeal.3
¶9 In 2013, Kelliher filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) alleging that his
sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the
United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The trial
court denied Kelliher’s MAR on the grounds that Miller did not apply retroactively.
However, this Court later held—consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 205 (2016)—that Miller
announced a substantive constitutional rule that was retroactively applicable in state
post-conviction proceedings. See State v. Young, 369 N.C. 118, 120 (2016).
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals issued an order reversing the trial court’s denial of
2 One year after Kelliher entered his guilty plea, the United States Supreme Court
held the death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S.
551 (2005).
3 Ballard was also arrested and faced the same charges as Kelliher. He pleaded not
guilty and was tried capitally. At trial, Kelliher testified for the State, and Ballard was
convicted of all charges and received two consecutive sentences of life without parole.
However, his convictions were overturned on appeal because the trial court failed to properly
question and advise Ballard before he waived his right to a conflict-free trial counsel. State
v. Ballard, 180 N.C. App. 637, 643 (2006). On remand, Ballard was acquitted.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Kelliher’s MAR and remanding for resentencing.
¶ 10 On 13 December 2018, Kelliher’s resentencing hearing was held in
Cumberland County Superior Court. At the hearing, the State sought life without
parole or, in the alternative, two consecutive sentences of life with parole. In support
of its position, the State presented a summary of the factual basis for Kelliher’s
convictions and victim impact testimony from Carpenter’s and Helton’s fathers.
Carpenter’s father described learning of his son’s death after his neighbors brought
him to the crime scene. He conveyed his anger at never getting the chance to meet
his grandson. Helton’s father described cleaning up the apartment after the murders
because he “didn’t want somebody else cleaning the blood of [his] daughter off the
wall.” He discussed how painful it was to see the sad expression on his daughter’s
face when she died. Both parents shared the ongoing pain and trauma they
experienced after losing a child; Helton’s father noted that while Kelliher could still
find ways to enjoy his life, Kelliher’s actions denied Helton, Carpenter, and their
unborn child that opportunity.
¶ 11 Kelliher requested that he be sentenced to concurrent sentences of life with
parole. In support of his position, Kelliher presented testimony from a forensic
psychologist who described Kelliher’s difficult childhood and history of substance
abuse; the director of a prison-based theological seminary who testified that Kelliher
had been selected to train as a “field minister[ ];” a prison writing instructor who
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
described Kelliher’s exemplary work as a writing tutor to other inmates; and
Kelliher’s pastor, who expressed his view that Kelliher was “absolutely” redeemable.
Kelliher also submitted records indicating that he had obtained his GED, associate
degree, and a paralegal certificate while in prison; had completed Bible
correspondence courses, courses in anger management, coping, and alcohol and drug
dependence; and was serving as an inmate treatment assistant.
¶ 12 At the conclusion of the hearing, the sentencing court found the following facts
with respect to Kelliher’s mitigation evidence:
One, the defendant was under the age of 18 at the
time of the offenses.
Two, due to the defendant's young age, the abusive
environment in which he was raised, and his ninth grade
education he was immature at the time of the offenses.
Three, the defendant had no prior record at the time
of the offenses.
Four, the defendant suffered from ADHD at the time
of the offenses.
Five, there is substantial evidence that the
defendant has benefitted from rehabilitation while in
confinement in that the defendant appears to have been a
model inmate with the exception of two infractions for
possession [of] non-threatening contraband and being in an
unauthorized area.
With respect to other mitigating factors and
circumstances the Court also finds present are six, at the
time of the offenses the defendant was addicted to drugs.
Seven, the defendant voluntarily accepted
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
responsibility for his criminal conduct, acknowledged
wrongdoing in connection with the offenses, and pled guilty
as charged.
Eight, the defendant testified truthfully for the
State against his co-defendant twice without a plea
agreement or promise of sentence consideration.
Nine, the defendant has furthered his education
while incarcerated in that he has attempted to improve
himself by taking advantage of programs offered by the
North Carolina Division of Adult Corrections by applying
for acceptance to a program offered by Southeastern
Baptist Seminary at Nash Correctional Center being
selected as one of 30 inmates to enter the program out of
362 applicants and successfully completing his first year of
the program leading to a bachelor[’]s degree in pastoral
ministry with a minor in counseling.
Ten, the defendant has continued to pursue a course
of self-improvement by teaching himself Spanish.
Eleven, during his incarceration the defendant has
worked as a janitor, warehouse worker, maintenance,
plumbing, welding, peer counselor, and teacher's aide.
Twelve, a risk assessment by Dr. Thomas Harbin,
Ph.D., suggests the defendant presents a low risk of future
violent offenses and a risk assessment by the North
Carolina Division of Adult Corrections found that the
defendant has a low risk of danger to the public.
Thirteen, the defendant has a support system in the
community as evidenced by the presence of his parents,
sister, and other family friends at this hearing.
Based on these findings of fact, the sentencing court concluded that “the mitigating
factors and other factors and circumstances present outweigh all the circumstances
of the offense” and that “the defendant is neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.”
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
However, the sentencing court also explained that, in its view, “when it comes to
murder, there are not bogos. There is no buy one, get one. There is no kill one, get
one. There is no[ ] combination of sentences. There is no consolidation of sentences.”
Therefore, the sentencing court ordered Kelliher to serve two consecutive sentences
of life with parole for the two counts of murder he committed.
B. The Court of Appeals decision
¶ 13 On appeal, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel reversed and held that
imposing two consecutive sentences of life with parole violated Kelliher’s Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Kelliher, 273 N.C.
App. at 644. The court’s decision rested on three main conclusions. First, the Court of
Appeals examined four relevant United States Supreme Court precedents—Roper,
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller, and Montgomery—and concluded that
these decisions established the following substantive constitutional rule:
[J]uvenile homicide offenders who are neither incorrigible
nor irreparably corrupt, are—like other juvenile
offenders—so distinct in their immaturity, vulnerability,
and malleability as to be outside the realm of [life without
parole] sentences under the Eighth Amendment.
Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 632. Because the sentencing court had deemed Kelliher
“neither incorrigible nor irredeemable,” the Court of Appeals reasoned that he could
not be sentenced to life without parole consistent with the requirements of the Eighth
Amendment.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 14 Second, the Court of Appeals concluded that “aggregated sentences may give
rise to a de facto [life without parole] punishment.” Id. at 638. According to the Court
of Appeals, the substantive Eighth Amendment rule the United States Supreme
Court articulated in its juvenile homicide cases “turned on the identity of the
defendant, not on the crimes perpetrated.” Id. at 639. Addressing cases from other
jurisdictions which had refused to recognize aggregate punishments as de facto life
without parole sentences, the Court of Appeals found those cases “distinguishable”
based on its view that North Carolina’s “caselaw and statutes compel the State to
consider consecutive sentences as a single punishment.” Id. at 640. Therefore, the
Court of Appeals concluded that Kelliher’s two consecutive life with parole sentences
should be treated as a single sentence requiring Kelliher to serve fifty years before
becoming eligible for parole.
¶ 15 Third, the Court of Appeals concluded that Kelliher’s two consecutive life with
parole sentences were equivalent to a de facto life without parole sentence and thus
implicated the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that “a
sentence that provides no opportunity for release for 50 or more years is cognizable
as a de facto [life without parole] sentence.” Id. at 644. In reaching this conclusion,
the Court of Appeals looked to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19, a statute amending North
Carolina’s juvenile sentencing scheme in the wake of Miller, which provides that “[i]f
the sole basis for conviction of a count or each count of first degree murder was the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
felony murder rule, then the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment
with parole.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(a)(1) (2021). Although the Court of Appeals
acknowledged that Kelliher “has clearly abandoned any assertion that he was
convicted under the felony murder rule. But N.C.[G.S.] § 15A-1340.19B(a)(1)
nonetheless indicates that our General Assembly has determined parole eligibility at
25 years for multiple offenses sanctionable by life with parole is not so excessive as
to run afoul of Miller.” Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 643 (citations omitted). In addition,
the Court of Appeals noted that a fifty-year sentence would render Kelliher ineligible
for release until after “retirement age,” depriving him of an “opportunity to directly
contribute to society,” and that such a sentence “falls at the limit identified by
numerous other jurisdictions as constituting an unconstitutional de facto [life without
parole] sentence.” Id. at 641–42.
¶ 16 In summary, the Court of Appeals held that
under Eighth Amendment jurisprudence: (1) de facto [life
without parole] sentences imposed on juveniles may run
afoul of the Eighth Amendment; (2) such punishments may
arise out of aggregated sentences; and (3) a sentence that
provides no opportunity for release for 50 or more years is
cognizable as a de facto [life without parole] sentence.
Consistent with the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by
Roper, Graham, Miller, and Montgomery, these holdings
compel us to reverse and remand Defendant’s sentence.
Id. at 644. The Court of Appeals did not separately address Kelliher’s argument that
his sentence violated article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution. Rather,
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
citing this Court’s decision in State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588 (1998), the Court of Appeals
stated that its “analysis . . . applies equally to both” Kelliher’s federal and state
constitutional claims. Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 633 n. 10.
¶ 17 The State filed a notice of appeal of a constitutional question pursuant to
N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(1) and, in the alternative, a petition for discretionary review
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31. This Court allowed the State’s petition for
discretionary review and, in addition, Kelliher’s conditional petition seeking review
of the scope of protection afforded to him under article I, section 27 of the North
Carolina Constitution.
II. Federal constitutional claim
¶ 18 The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in full that
“[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishment inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. XIII. “[T]he words of the
Amendment are not precise, and . . . their scope is not static. The Amendment must
draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100–101 (1958).
¶ 19 Criminal punishment is cruel and unusual within the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment when it is disproportionate. See, e.g., Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 206
(“Protection against disproportionate punishment is the central substantive
guarantee of the Eighth Amendment and goes far beyond the manner of determining
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
a defendant's sentence.”); Graham, 560 U.S. at 59 (“The concept of proportionality is
central to the Eighth Amendment.”). A punishment can be unconstitutionally
disproportionate as applied to a particular offender for a particular offense if it is an
“extreme sentence[ ] that [is] ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” Harmelin v.
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (Kennedy J., concurring in part) (quoting Solem v.
Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 288 (1983)). In these cases, a court “considers all of the
circumstances of the case to determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally
excessive.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 59. A punishment can also be disproportionate as
applied to all offenders within a particular category based on “the nature of the
offense” or “the characteristics of the offender.” Id. at 60. In these cases, courts utilize
a two-step inquiry:
The Court first considers “objective indicia of society's
standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state
practice,” to determine whether there is a national
consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. Roper,
[543 U.S.] at 572, 125 S.Ct. 1184. Next, guided by “the
standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the
Court's own understanding and interpretation of the
Eighth Amendment’s text, history, meaning, and
purpose,” Kennedy[ v. Louisiana], 554 U.S. [407,] 421
[(2008)], 128 S.Ct., at 2650, the Court must determine in
the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the
punishment in question violates the Constitution.
Id. at 61.
¶ 20 In this case, Kelliher argues that his consecutive life sentences are
unconstitutional because he falls within a category of offenders for whom a sentence
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
of life without parole is always and inevitably disproportionate: juvenile offenders
who are “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.” This argument requires Kelliher to
establish two necessary corollaries: (1) that the Eighth Amendment flatly prohibits
the imposition of a sentence of life without parole for the category of juvenile homicide
offenders who are “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable”; and (2) that he has received
a sentence which the Eighth Amendment forbids for this category of offenders, e.g., a
de facto sentence of life without parole. We conclude that the Eighth Amendment
does bar the imposition of life without parole for the category of juvenile homicide
offenders who have expressly been found to be “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable”
and that consecutive sentences requiring a juvenile offender to serve fifty years before
becoming parole eligible are de facto life without parole sentences. Thus, we conclude
that Kelliher’s consecutive life sentences requiring him to serve fifty years before he
becomes eligible for parole violate the Eighth Amendment.4
A. Eighth Amendment principles
¶ 21 The United States Supreme Court has considered the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment in the juvenile sentencing context on numerous occasions over the past
two decades. In this case, the Court of Appeals comprehensively examined four
relevant Supreme Court precedents: Roper, Graham, Miller, and Montgomery.
4 Our resolution of Kelliher’s appeal in this case is consistent with this Court’s
resolution of the defendant’s appeal from State v. Conner, 275 N.C. App. 758 (2020), also
issued today.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Although the parties dispute the applicability of these precedents to Kelliher’s
particular sentence, as well as their significance in light of the United States
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones, the parties do not meaningfully contest the
Court of Appeals’ characterization of these cases. Accordingly, we will only briefly
summarize these four cases to contextualize Kelliher’s claims and our subsequent
legal analysis.
1. Roper, Graham, Miller, Montgomery
¶ 22 In Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court held that it violated
the Eighth Amendment to execute juvenile offenders, including those who committed
homicide offenses. 543 U.S. at 575. This constitutional rule was rooted in the
Supreme Court’s assessment of “[t]he differences between juvenile and adult
offenders” which bore on the various penological justifications for imposing criminal
punishment. Id. at 572. The Supreme Court identified “[t]hree general differences
between juveniles under 18 and adults [which] demonstrate that juvenile offenders
cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” who could be
subjected to the death penalty “no matter how heinous the crime.” Id. at 568–69.
These differences were (1) juveniles’ “lack of maturity and . . . underdeveloped sense
of responsibility,” id. at 569 (quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 367 (1993));
(2) that juveniles were “more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and
outside pressures, including peer pressure,” id. (citing Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
104, 115 (1982)); and (3) the fact that “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed
as that of an adult,” meaning “[t]he personality traits of juveniles are more transitory,
less fixed,” id. at 570.
¶ 23 These differences rendered juvenile offenders categorically less morally
culpable for their criminal conduct than adults who committed the same criminal
acts. Id. By extension, the two penological justifications for imposing the death
penalty—“retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders”—
applied “with lesser force” to juveniles than to adults. Id. at 571 (first quoting Atkins
v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 319 (2002)). According to the Court, “[r]etribution is not
proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or
blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and
immaturity.” Id. “As for deterrence, it is unclear whether the death penalty has a
significant or even measurable deterrent effect on juveniles . . . . [And] the absence of
evidence of deterrent effect is of special concern because the same characteristics that
render juveniles less culpable than adults suggest as well that juveniles will be less
susceptible to deterrence.” Id. Thus, without looking away from “the brutal crimes
too many juvenile offenders have committed,” the Supreme Court concluded that
“[t]he differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well
understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite
insufficient culpability.” Id. at 572–73.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 24 In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its “observations in Roper
about the nature of juveniles” and the “fundamental differences between juvenile and
adult minds” in holding that the Eighth Amendment forbid the imposition of life
without parole for juvenile non-homicide offenders. 560 U.S. at 68. The Court
explained that although a sentence of life without parole was less severe than the
death penalty, the sentences “share some characteristics . . . that are shared by no
other sentences,” including that both “alter[ ] the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is
irrevocable” and “deprive[ ] the convict of the most basic liberties without giving hope
of restoration, except perhaps by executive clemency—the remote possibility of which
does not mitigate the harshness of the sentence.” Id. at 69–70. The Court also noted
that life without parole was “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile” because
“[u]nder this sentence a juvenile will on average serve more years and a greater
percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender,” a “reality [that] cannot be
ignored.” Id. at 70–71. As in Roper, the Court examined the “penological
justification[s]” for imposing life without parole and concluded that “[w]ith respect to
life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, none of the goals of penal
sanctions that have been recognized as legitimate—retribution, deterrence,
incapacitation, and rehabilitation—provides an adequate justification” Id. at 71
(citations omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that while states are “not
required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
nonhomicide crime,” states must give juvenile nonhomicide offenders “some
meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation.” Id. at 75.
¶ 25 Next, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held “that mandatory life
without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” 567 U.S. at
465. In Miller, the Supreme Court drew on “two strands of precedent reflecting our
concern with proportionate punishment.” Id. at 470. The first set of precedents, which
included Roper and Graham, “adopted categorical bans on sentencing practices based
on mismatches between the culpability of a class of offenders and the severity of a
penalty.” Id. These cases established that “children are constitutionally different
from adults for purposes of sentencing.” Id. at 471. The second set of precedents
included cases “demanding individualized sentencing when imposing the death
penalty.” Id. at 475. These cases demonstrated that “in imposing a State’s harshest
penalties, a sentencer misses too much if he treats every child as an adult” and in the
process fails to consider a juvenile offender’s “age and the wealth of characteristics
and circumstances attendant to it.” Id. at 476–77. Read together, these two strands
of precedent led the Supreme Court to conclude that “the Eighth Amendment forbids
a sentencing scheme that mandates life without possibility of parole for juvenile
offenders,” including juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. Id. at 479.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 26 Notably, the Supreme Court refused to “consider [the juvenile offenders’]
alternative argument that the Eighth Amendment requires a categorical bar on life
without parole for juveniles, or at least for those 14 and younger.” Id. Nonetheless,
the Court explained that
given all we have said in Roper, Graham, and this decision
about children’s diminished culpability and heightened
capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for
sentencing juveniles to [life without parole] will be
uncommon. That is especially so because of the great
difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham of distinguishing
at this early age between “the juvenile offender whose
crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and
the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable
corruption.” Roper, 543 U.S. at 573, 125 S.Ct. 1183;
Graham, 560 U.S., at 68, 130 S.Ct., at 2026-2027. Although
we do not foreclose a sentencer’s ability to make that
judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into
account how children are different, and how those
differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to
a lifetime in prison.
Id. at 479–80.
¶ 27 Finally, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court confirmed that Miller
announced a substantive constitutional rule retroactively applicable in state post-
conviction proceedings. 577 U.S. at 200. The Supreme Court explained that under
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), “courts must give retroactive effect to new
watershed procedural rules and to substantive rules of constitutional law.”
Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 198. The latter category encompassed “ ‘rules forbidding
criminal punishment of certain primary conduct,’ as well as ‘rules prohibiting a
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or
offense.’ ” Id. (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh, 392 U.S. 302, 330 (1989)). Substantive rules
“set forth categorical constitutional guarantees that place certain criminal laws and
punishment altogether beyond the State’s power to impose.” Id. at 201. The Supreme
Court held that Miller announced the substantive rule that life without parole was
forbidden as a “disproportionate sentence” under the Eighth Amendment for every
juvenile homicide offender whose crime reflected “transient immaturity” as opposed
to “irreparable corruption.” Id. at 209.
¶ 28 In concluding that Miller announced a substantive constitutional rule,
Montgomery clarified the scope and meaning of Miller’s holding. The Supreme Court
stated that “[a]lthough Miller did not foreclose a sentencer’s ability to impose life
without parole on a juvenile, [Miller] explained that a lifetime in prison is a
disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest of children, those whose crimes reflect
irreparable corruption.” Id. at 195 (cleaned up); see also id. at 208 (“The [Miller] Court
recognized that a sentencer might encounter the rare juvenile offender who exhibits
such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole
is justified.”). The Supreme Court further explained that the existence of a
discretionary sentencing scheme did not itself guarantee that a juvenile homicide
offender could constitutionally be sentenced to life without parole:
Miller, then, did more than require a sentencer to consider
a juvenile offender’s youth before imposing life without
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
parole . . . . Even if a court considers a child’s age before
sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence
still violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose
crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity.
Because Miller determined that sentencing a child to life
without parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile
offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption, it
rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty
for a class of defendants because of their status–that is,
juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient
immaturity of youth. As a result, Miller announced a
substantive rule of constitutional law.
Id. (cleaned up). In reaching this conclusion, the Court expressly rejected the
argument that “Miller is procedural because it did not place any punishment beyond
the State’s power to impose,” holding instead that “Miller did bar life without parole
. . . for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent
incorrigibility.” Id. at 209.
¶ 29 As summarized in Montgomery, the United States Supreme Court decisions
addressing juvenile offenders up until this point “drew a line between children whose
crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect
irreparable corruption.” Id. A sentence of “life without parole could be a proportionate
sentence for the latter kind of juvenile offender,” but not the former. Id. (emphasis
added). Sentencing courts would be required to conduct “[a] hearing where youth and
its attendant characteristics are considered as sentencing factors” in order to
“separate those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole” (e.g., those
“whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption”) “from those who may not” (e.g., those
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
“whose crimes reflect transient immaturity” and for whom life without parole is “an
excessive sentence”). Id. at 210 (cleaned up); see also id. at 211 (“That Miller did not
impose a formal factfinding requirement does not leave States free to sentence a child
whose crime reflects transient immaturity to life without parole. To the contrary,
Miller established that this punishment is disproportionate under the Eighth
Amendment.”). Thus, as the Court of Appeals correctly held in this case, under the
precedents before it at the time Kelliher’s appeal was decided, the Eighth
Amendment prohibited the imposition of a sentence of life without parole on a
juvenile who, like Kelliher, was found to be “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.”
2. The impact of Jones v. Mississippi
¶ 30 Yet our federal constitutional analysis does not end with Roper, Graham,
Miller, and Montgomery. After the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case,
the United States Supreme Court decided Jones v. Mississippi, another decision
examining the Eighth Amendment protections afforded to juvenile homicide
offenders. The State argues that even if the Court of Appeals correctly interpreted
the United States Supreme Court’s earlier juvenile sentencing decisions, Jones
fundamentally alters the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In the
State’s view, Jones establishes that the Eighth Amendment requires nothing more
than the existence of a discretionary sentencing procedure under which the sentencer
is allowed to consider a juvenile homicide offender’s youth; the State contends that,
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
after Jones, any juvenile homicide offender can be sentenced to life without parole
once these procedural prerequisites have been satisfied. In contrast, Kelliher reads
Jones as a narrow ruling answering a procedural question arising after Miller and
Montgomery: whether a sentencing court must enter a finding that the juvenile is
irreparably corrupt before sentencing that juvenile to life without parole. In Kelliher’s
view, Jones solely addressed this question and in no way abrogated the substantive
constitutional rule articulated in Miller and Montgomery.
¶ 31 In Jones, a Mississippi trial court sentenced fifteen-year-old Brett Jones to life
without parole for first-degree murder. 141 S. Ct. at 1311. The court which sentenced
Jones did not enter a finding declaring Jones “permanently incorrigible,” nor did the
sentencing court “provide an on-the-record sentencing explanation with an implicit
finding that the defendant is permanently incorrigible.” Id. Jones argued that this
omission meant his sentence ran afoul of the substantive Eighth Amendment rule
articulated in Miller and made retroactively applicable in Montgomery. Id. The
United States Supreme Court disagreed.
¶ 32 According to the Supreme Court, Miller and Montgomery “squarely rejected”
the argument that a sentencing court “must also make a separate factual finding of
permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a murderer under 18 to life without
parole.” Id. at 1314. Instead, the Supreme Court read Miller and Montgomery as
establishing that “a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility is not
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
required.” Id. at 1313; see also id. at 1318–19 (“The Court has unequivocally stated
that a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility is not required before a
sentencer imposes a life-without-parole sentence on a murderer under 18.”).
Additionally, the Supreme Court explained that “an on-the-record sentencing
explanation is not necessary to ensure that a sentencer considers a defendant’s youth”
because “if the sentencer has discretion to consider the defendant’s youth, the
sentencer necessarily will consider the defendant’s youth, especially if defense
counsel advances an argument based on the defendant’s youth.” Id. at 1319.
Therefore, the fact that the sentencing court did not explicitly find Jones to be
incorrigible before sentencing him to life without parole did not offend the Eighth
Amendment, as the sentencing court possessed the discretion to impose a lesser
sentence based on its own consideration of Jones’ youth. Id.
¶ 33 On its face, aspects of Jones could be viewed as conflicting with, and thus
implicitly overruling, aspects of Miller and Montgomery. For example, the Supreme
Court in Jones stated that “[i]n a case involving an individual who was under 18 when
he or she committed a homicide, a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both
constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” Id. at 1313. As the State
argues, this language could be read to suggest that the Eighth Amendment permits
courts to sentence any juvenile homicide offender to life without parole, as long as the
sentencing court does so in an exercise of its discretion having considered the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
defendant’s youth. If the State were correct, we would agree that Kelliher’s Eighth
Amendment claim would necessarily fail: it is indisputable that his sentencing court
possessed the discretion to sentence Kelliher to a lesser sentence, and the court
plainly considered his youth.
¶ 34 This expansive reading of Jones is in significant tension with Miller and
especially Montgomery. In the latter case, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the
argument the State contends the Supreme Court adopted in Jones, the argument that
the Eighth Amendment requires nothing more than that “sentencing courts . . . take
children’s age into account before condemning them to die in prison.” Montgomery,
577 at 209. Instead, the Montgomery Court concluded that Miller “did bar life without
parole . . . for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect
permanent incorrigibility.” Id.; see also id. at 208 (“Even if a court considers a child’s
age before sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates
the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient
immaturity.” (cleaned up)). Thus, adopting the State’s position would require us to
read Jones as repudiating core Eighth Amendment principles articulated in Miller
and Montgomery.
¶ 35 The problem with the State’s proposed interpretation of Jones is that it is
irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s own characterization of the question it was
answering in Jones, the narrowness of its holding, and its description of the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
relationship between Jones and the Supreme Court’s prior juvenile sentencing
decisions. By its plain terms, Jones makes clear that the Supreme Court intended
only to reject an effort to append a new procedural requirement to Miller’s and
Montgomery’s substantive constitutional rule; the Court did not intend to retreat
from the substantive constitutional rule articulated in those cases.
¶ 36 For example, the Jones Court expressly and repeatedly affirmed that its
decision was fully consistent with, and in no way abrogated or overturned, Miller and
Montgomery. See, e.g., Jones, 141 S. Ct. at 1321 (“The Court’s decision today carefully
follows both Miller and Montgomery. . . . Today’s decision does not overrule Miller or
Montgomery.”); see also id. at 1337 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“[S]entencers should
hold this Court to its word: Miller and Montgomery are still good law.”). The Jones
Court characterized its holding as addressing the narrow question of whether to
recognize “an additional constitutional requirement that the sentencer must make a
finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a murderer under 18 to life
without parole,” a requirement not imposed by the “significant changes wrought by
Miller and Montgomery.” Id. at 1322 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1323 (Thomas,
J., concurring in the judgment) (“The Court correctly holds that the Eighth
Amendment does not require a finding that a minor be permanently incorrigible as a
prerequisite to a sentence of life without parole.”). The Jones Court explained that its
answer to this question was compelled by “what Miller and Montgomery said—that
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
is, their explicit language addressing the precise question before us and definitively
rejecting any requirement of a finding of permanent incorrigibility.” Id. (emphasis
added). These statements do not support the State’s argument that Jones
countermanded previously decided substantive Eighth Amendment doctrine.
¶ 37 Rather, the “explicit language addressing the precise question before” the
Supreme Court in Jones demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s procedural holding
in that case did not displace “Miller’s substantive holding that life without parole is
an excessive sentence for children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity.”
Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 210 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we reject the State’s
argument that Jones controls when a juvenile homicide offender who the sentencing
court has found to be redeemable is, nevertheless, sentenced to life without parole.
Certainly, Jones establishes that the Eighth Amendment does not require a
sentencing court to find a juvenile homicide offender permanently incorrigible before
sentencing that juvenile to life without parole under a discretionary sentencing
scheme like North Carolina’s. But Jones does not alter the substantive Eighth
Amendment rule announced in Miller and Montgomery which forbids a sentencing
court from sentencing redeemable juveniles to life without parole. To hold otherwise
would require us to read Jones far more expansively than the Supreme Court
intended, the very sin that Jones warns against committing. Instead, Jones reflects
the Supreme Court’s confidence that sentencing courts with the discretion to adjust
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
juvenile offenders’ sentences based on consideration of their youth will exercise that
discretion to distinguish between those juveniles who constitutionally can be
sentenced to life without parole and those who cannot.
¶ 38 Therefore, consistent with Miller, Montgomery, and Jones, we conclude that
the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits a sentencing court from sentencing
any juvenile to life without parole if the sentencing court has found the juvenile to be
“neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.” Based on the sentencing court’s findings in
this case, specifically the court’s express finding that Kelliher is “neither incorrigible
nor irredeemable,” Kelliher cannot be sentenced to life without parole consistent with
the Eighth Amendment. Having reached this conclusion, we next address whether
his aggregate sentences requiring him to spend fifty years in prison before becoming
eligible for parole constitute a de facto life without parole sentence within the
meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
B. De facto life without parole is cognizable under the Eighth Amendment
¶ 39 The Court of Appeals held that Kelliher’s sentences comprised a “de facto [life
without parole] sentence[ ]” which was “cognizable as a cruel and unusual
punishment barred under” the Eighth Amendment. Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 633.
As recounted above, the Court of Appeals reasoned that in assessing the scope of
protection afforded by the Eighth Amendment, it would consider “the true reality of
the actual punishment imposed on a juvenile” rather than how the punishment was
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
formally denoted. Id. at 636. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that a sentence
constitutes de facto life without parole if it deprives a juvenile offender “of the ‘hope
for some years of life outside prison walls’ required by Graham and Miller.” Id. at 641
(quoting Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 213). This proposition held true even if the sentence
resulted from convictions for multiple offenses (or multiple counts of the same
offense), because “[t]he applicability and scope of protection found in the Eighth
Amendment under both decisions turned on the identity of the defendant, not on the
crimes perpetrated.” Id. at 639. In recognizing the de facto life without parole
doctrine, the Court of Appeals joined what it characterized as the “clear majority” of
states to have considered this question. Id. at 634–35.
¶ 40 Kelliher urges us to affirm and hold that “the Eighth Amendment applies to
juvenile offenders with lengthy sentences, including sentences allowing a possibility
of release before death.” In his view, the Eighth Amendment requires granting all
juvenile offenders except those who have been deemed incorrigible “a meaningful
opportunity for release before most of their life has passed by,” an opportunity his
two consecutive life with parole sentence denies him. By contrast, the State argues
that “[a]bsent further guidance from the Supreme Court of the United States,” this
Court should not recognize sentences other than those formally denoted life without
parole as implicating the Eighth Amendment. Regardless, the State contends that
even if we were to recognize the de facto life without parole doctrine, Kelliher’s
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
sentence is not akin to de facto life without parole because “[a] sentence that affords
a defendant an opportunity for parole even at an older age cannot be said to be its
functional equivalent.”
¶ 41 The question of whether to recognize lengthy and aggregate sentences as de
facto life without parole has not been resolved by the United States Supreme Court
and has divided state and federal courts. Nevertheless, our reading of the principles
enunciated in the Supreme Court’s juvenile sentencing cases persuades us that
Kelliher’s sentence triggers the substantive constitutional rule set forth in Miller and
Montgomery. We agree with Kelliher and the Court of Appeals that the Eighth
Amendment requires courts to afford redeemable juvenile offenders “some
meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 75.
¶ 42 The crux of Roper, Graham, Miller, and Montgomery was the uniqueness of
adolescence and the ways youth’s distinctive characteristics related to the penological
justifications for imposing criminal punishment. The salient circumstances rendering
certain punishments constitutionally impermissible in Miller and Montgomery
related to the nature of the offender, not the circumstances of the crime. Put another
way, the “underlying rationale” of these cases was “not crime specific.” State v. Null,
836 N.W. 2d 41, 73 (Iowa 2013). Further, the Supreme Court has not drawn the
distinction the State now presses between sentences arising from a single offense and
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
those arising from multiple offenses, despite having been presented with multiple
opportunities to do so. For example, one of the juvenile offenders in Miller was
convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery, while the other was convicted of
murder in the course of arson; the Supreme Court did not indicate that the
substantive constitutional rule it was announcing varied in its applicability as
between the two juveniles. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 467–69. And, as the Supreme Court
of Iowa has noted, “after Miller, the Supreme Court in several cases involving
aggregate crimes granted certiorari, vacated the sentence, and remanded for
consideration in light of Miller.” Null, 836 N.W.2d at 73–74 (collecting cases).
¶ 43 As the Supreme Court has stated, when it comes to the Eighth Amendment,
“reality cannot be ignored.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 71. Therefore, we agree with
Kelliher and the Court of Appeals that a sentence of fifty years before parole
eligibility is akin to a de facto sentence of life without parole within the meaning of
the Eighth Amendment. Allowing a juvenile the opportunity to be released on parole
only after spending fifty years in prison “den[ies] the defendant the right to reenter
the community” in any meaningful way. Id. at 74; see also People v. Buffer, 2019 IL
122327, ¶ 33 (“Practically, and ultimately, the prospect of geriatric release does not
provide a juvenile with a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the maturity and
rehabilitation required to obtain release and reenter society.”).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
III. State constitutional claim
¶ 44 We separately address Kelliher’s claim arising under article I, section 27 of the
North Carolina Constitution, which provides in full that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.”
N.C. Const. art. I, sec. 27. The State argues that article I, section 27 should be
interpreted in lockstep with the Eighth Amendment—it contends that the protections
afforded by article I, section 27 are coextensive with the Eighth Amendment, such
that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment
controls our interpretation of article I, section 27. Kelliher argues that both the text
of article I, section 27 as well as unique considerations embodied in other provisions
of the North Carolina Constitution should compel us to independently construe the
scope of the protections afforded by our state’s own constitution in this context.
¶ 45 We agree with Kelliher that article I, section 27 of the North Carolina
Constitution offers protections distinct from, and in this context broader than, those
provided under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that Kelliher’s sentence
is unconstitutional under article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution,
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
regardless of whether or not his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.5
A. Article I, Section 27 is distinct from the Eighth Amendment
¶ 46 We first address the State’s argument that article I, section 27 must be
interpreted in lockstep with the Eighth Amendment. At the outset, we note the
textual distinction between article I, section 27, which prohibits punishment that is
“cruel or unusual,” and the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits punishment that is
“cruel and unusual.” Ordinarily, we presume that the words of a statute or
constitutional provision mean what they say. See, e.g., State ex rel. Martin v. Preston,
325 N.C. 438, 449 (1989) (“In interpreting our Constitution–as in interpreting a
statute–where the meaning is clear from the words used, we will not search for a
meaning elsewhere.”). Thus, it is reasonable to presume that when the Framers of
the North Carolina Constitution chose the words “cruel or unusual,” they intended to
prohibit punishment that was either cruel or unusual, consistent with the ordinary
5 Several state courts have recognized that consecutive sentences imposed on juveniles
are subject to Graham and Miller-type limits under their state constitution’s analog to the
Eighth Amendment or under their independent power to review sentences. See, e.g., Brown
v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 7–8 (Ind. 2014) (holding that Miller and Graham applied to 150-year
aggregate sentence when acting pursuant to state constitutional authority to review and
revise sentences); State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 74–77 (Iowa 2013) (explaining that the
“[Constitution of Iowa] requires . . . recogniz[ing] and apply[ing] the core teachings of Roper,
Graham, and Miller in making sentencing decisions for long prison terms involving juveniles
. . . [and] consider[ing] whether the imposition of consecutive sentences would result in a
prison term of such length that it [is] cruel and unusual punishment[.]”); Commonwealth v.
Perez, 477 Mass. 677, 686 (2017) (holding that Massachusetts constitution requires Miller-
hearing before imposing aggregate sentence exceeding the sentence that a juvenile would
receive for murder).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
meaning of the disjunctive term “or.” See, e.g., Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of
Asheville, 358 N.C. 512, 519 (2004) (explaining that the proper interpretation of a
statute was influenced “by the use of the conjunctive term ‘and’ within the statute”);
In re Duckett’s Claim, 271 N.C. 430, 437 (1967) (“[T]he disjunctive participle ‘or’ is
used to indicate a clear alternative. The second alternative is not a part of the first,
and its provisions cannot be read into the first.”).
¶ 47 That article I, section 27 is textually distinct from the Eighth Amendment
suggests that the people of North Carolina intended to provide a distinct set of
protections in the North Carolina Constitution than those provided to them by the
federal constitution. Cf. People v. Bullock, 440 Mich. 15, 31 n.11 (1992) (“[I]t seems
self-evident that any adjectival phrase in the form ‘A or B’ necessarily encompasses
a broader sweep than a phrase in the form ‘A and B.’ The set of punishments which
are either ‘cruel’ or ‘unusual’ would seem necessarily broader than the set of
punishments which are both ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual.’ ”); Commonwealth v. Concepcion,
487 Mass. 77, 86, cert. denied sub nom. Concepcion v. Massachusetts, 142 S. Ct. 408(2021) (stating that a Massachusetts constitutional provision proscribing cruel or
unusual punishment “affords defendants greater protections than the Eighth
Amendment does”). At least one Justice of this Court has previously expressed his
adherence to this view. See Medley v. N.C. Dep’t of Correction, 330 N.C. 837, 846
(1992) (“The disjunctive term ‘or’ in the State Constitution expresses a prohibition on
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
punishments more inclusive than the Eighth Amendment.”) (Martin, J., concurring).
Given that our interpretation of the North Carolina Constitution always “begin[s]
with the text,” Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm., 376 N.C. 558,
2021-NCSC-6, ¶ 15, there is reason to confer interpretive significance on this textual
distinction, cf. William W. Berry III, Cruel and Unusual Non-Capital Punishments,
58 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1627, 1653 (2021) (“In many cases . . . the state constitutional
language is different from the Eighth Amendment, and often in significant ways . . . .
[T]hese linguistic differences provide the basis for broader, or at least different,
coverage of state punishments.”).
¶ 48 Further, even where a provision of the North Carolina Constitution precisely
mirrors a provision of the United States Constitution, “we have the authority to
construe our own constitution differently from the construction by the United States
Supreme Court of the Federal Constitution, as long as our citizens are thereby
accorded no lesser rights than they are guaranteed by the parallel provision.” State
v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 713 (1988); see also State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 642
(1984) (“In construing provisions of the Constitution of North Carolina, this Court is
not bound by opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States construing even
identical provisions in the Constitution of the United States.”). Our independent
authority to interpret state constitutional provisions reflects the unique role of state
constitutions and state courts within our system of federalism. See generally Jeffrey
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional
Law (2018). It also reflects the need to “give our Constitution a liberal interpretation
in favor of its citizens with respect to those provisions which were designed to
safeguard the liberty and security of the citizens in regard to both person and
property.” Corum v. Univ. of N.C. Through Bd. of Governors, 330 N.C. 761, 783 (1992);
see also John V. Orth & Paul Martin Newby, The North Carolina State Constitution
37 (2d ed. 2013) (“[T]hese provisions [in N.C. Const. art. I] . . . empower the state
courts to provide protections going even beyond those secured by the U.S.
Constitution.”).
¶ 49 Finally, the nature of the inquiry the United States Supreme Court has
adopted in resolving cruel and unusual punishment claims itself suggests that state
courts should not reflexively defer to United States Supreme Court precedent in
assessing similar claims arising under distinct state constitutional provisions. As
recounted above, Eighth Amendment doctrine assesses a challenged punishment by
reference to practices in other jurisdictions, and ultimately requires a court to
“determine in the exercise of its own independent judgment whether the punishment
in question violates the [United States] Constitution.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 61. Thus,
even if we were to adhere to the United States Supreme Court’s basic analytical
framework, we might diverge from the Court in how that framework is applied.
Although we have good reason to (and indeed must) defer to the “independent
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
judgment” of the United States Supreme Court in assessing whether a punishment
is cruel and unusual as judged against the standards embodied in the United States
Constitution, “[t]his Court is the only entity which can answer with finality questions
concerning the proper construction and application of the North Carolina
Constitution.” Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 474 (1999).
¶ 50 The constitutional text, our precedents illustrating this Court’s role in
interpreting the North Carolina Constitution, and the nature of the inquiry used to
determine whether a punishment violates the federal constitution all militate against
interpreting article I, section 27 in lockstep with the Eighth Amendment. In response,
the State argues that this question was asked and answered in a previous case, State
v. Green, 348 N.C. 588 (1998), which the State contends controls here. In Green, a
case in which a defendant who was convicted of a first-degree sexual offense he
committed at age thirteen challenged his sentence of life imprisonment, we noted the
textual difference between article I, section 27 and the Eighth Amendment but
observed that “this Court historically has analyzed cruel and/or unusual punishment
claims by criminal defendants the same under both the federal and state
constitutions.” Green, 348 N.C. at 603. In a footnote, we also explained that we would
not at that time adopt Justice Martin’s argument regarding the significance of article
I, section 27’s use of the disjunctive term “or” because “research reveals neither
subsequent movement toward [Justice Martin’s] position by either this Court or the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Court of Appeals nor any compelling reason to adopt such a position.” Id. at 603 n.1.
¶ 51 Although these excerpts from Green illustrate how this Court approached
article I, section 27 at the time that case was decided, the State’s argument that Green
requires us to approach article I, section 27 the same exact way today misses the
mark. Green’s reasoning is starkly inconsistent with contemporary understandings
of adolescence which have been recognized by this Court. For example, in Green we
reasoned that the defendant’s youth did not render his sentence disproportionate in
part because
the number of years a defendant has spent on this planet
is not solely determinative of his “age.” Due to factors such
as life experience, knowledge level, psychological
development, criminal familiarity, and sophistication and
severity of the crime charged, a criminal defendant may be
deemed to possess the wisdom and age of individuals
considerably older than his chronological age.
348 N.C. at 610 (citations omitted). Yet, as we recognized in State v. James, a
juvenile’s “chronological age and its hallmark features” undermine the penological
justifications for imposing extreme sentences on the vast majority of juveniles. 371
N.C. at 96 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 477).6 In Green, we stated that an interest in
the “protection of law-abiding citizens from their predators, regardless of the
6 It is notable that the juvenile offender in Green, Andre Demetrius Green, “came from
a home where his father was an alcoholic and cocaine abuser who provided no support for the
family and had little contact with defendant as a child.” State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 593
(1998). Today, these circumstances would certainly be relevant if he were to be resentenced.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
predators’ ages, is on the ascendancy in our state and nation.” 348 N.C. at 608. We
now recognize that our practice of describing children as “predators” fundamentally
misapprehended the nature of childhood and, frequently, reflected racialized notions
of some children’s supposedly inherent proclivity to commit crimes. See The
Superpredator Myth, 25 Years Later, Equal Just. Initiative (Apr. 7, 2014),
https://eji.org/news/superpredator-myth-20-years-later/); see also State v. Null, 836
N.W.2d 41, 56 (Iowa 2013) (noting that the propagators of the juvenile “predator”
theory ultimately acknowledged that “the[ir] predictions did not come to pass, that
juvenile crime rates had in fact decreased over the recent decades, that state
legislative actions in the 1990s were taken during ‘an environment of hysteria
featuring highly publicized heinous crimes committed by juvenile offenders,’ and that
recent scientific evidence and empirical data invalidated the juvenile superpredator
myth.”); State v. Belcher, 342 Conn. 1, 13–14 (2022) (“[A] review of the superpredator
theory and its history demonstrates that the theory constituted materially false and
unreliable information. . . . Extensive research data and empirical analysis quickly
demonstrated that the superpredator theory was baseless.”). As Green itself
recognized, our decision in that case was very much a product of its time. 348 N.C. at
608 (“Similarly, it is the general consensus that serious youthful offenders must be
dealt with more severely than has recently been the case in the juvenile system.
These tides of thought may ebb in the future, but for now, they predominate in the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
arena of ideas.”). We conclude today that Green’s time has passed; our emerging
science-based understanding of childhood development necessitates abandoning its
reasoning.7
¶ 52 The State’s other argument against this Court independently construing
article I, section 27 is that our doing so treads upon the prerogatives of the legislature
acting on behalf of the people of North Carolina. According to the State, because “[t]he
imposition of consecutive life with parole sentences is permissible according to the
sentencing scheme enacted by our legislature,” and because United States Supreme
Court jurisprudence on this matter is unsettled, we should “not be persuaded that
the North Carolina Constitution requires a broader approach to juvenile sentencing”
than the approach required by the Eighth Amendment. But as we long ago
established and have since repeatedly affirmed, the fact that the legislature has
enacted a statute does not guarantee its constitutionality as applied in all
circumstances; interpreting constitutional provisions is a quintessential judicial
function. See, e.g., Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 5 (1787); McCrory v. Berger, 368 N.C.
633 (2016). While we always presume that the legislature has acted within
7To be clear, for the reasons stated above, we do not believe Green is binding precedent
with respect to the question of how to interpret article I, section 27 in relation to the Eighth
Amendment. However, even if it were, we believe the circumstances would justify departing
from Green in light of that decision’s outdated reasoning about adolescence and subsequent
decisions disavowing its central holding. Cf. N. Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v.
Dana, 2021-NCSC-161, ¶ 32 (Earls, J., concurring) (describing the factors to consider when
determining if a challenged precedent should be respected under the doctrine of stare decisis).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
constitutional bounds, it is this Court’s “solemn obligation” to invalidate statutes
which violate the North Carolina Constitution, and our authority to do so is “too
firmly sanctioned . . . to be questioned.” Stanmire v. Taylor, 48 N.C. 207, 211 (1855).
Ultimately, “[q]uestions concerning the proper construction and application of the
North Carolina Constitution can be answered with finality only by this Court.” State
v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 648 (1998).
¶ 53 For these reasons, we conclude that article I, section 27 of the North Carolina
Constitution need not be interpreted in lockstep with the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Although we give “the most serious consideration” to
United States Supreme Court decisions and may “in our discretion . . . conclude that
the reasoning of such decisions is persuasive,” State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 648
(1998), we must strive to give effect to the choices the people of North Carolina made
in constructing and adopting North Carolina’s own Constitution reflecting North
Carolinians’ own aspirations and concerns. That includes giving effect to the people
of North Carolina’s choice to prohibit all punishments that are either cruel or
unusual. Accordingly, we now turn to the North Carolina Constitution to define the
protections afforded by article I, section 27.
B. State constitutional principles
¶ 54 Although the two provisions need not be interpreted in lockstep, the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Carolina Constitution do share one important similarity: neither precisely defines the
terms “cruel” or “unusual.” See State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423, 429 (1878) (explaining
that while the North Carolina Constitution does impose “a limit to the power of the
[j]udge to punish . . . [w]hat the precise limit is, cannot be prescribed”). What is clear
from the plain meaning of both terms is that determining whether a punishment is
“cruel” or “unusual” requires a contextual inquiry, the results of which may change
over time as society evolves. Thus, we are persuaded that, at this time, there is no
reason to depart from the basic Eighth Amendment analytical framework as
articulated by the United States Supreme Court in cases like Trop and Graham and
described above. We draw the meaning of article I, section 27 “from the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop, 356 U.S.
at 100–01, and we consider “objective indicia of society's standards” when we
“exercise [our] own independent judgment [to decide] whether the punishment in
question violates the Constitution,” Graham, 560 U.S. at 61.
¶ 55 However, in exercising our independent judgment to assess a punishment
under article I, section 27, we must also consider features unique to the North
Carolina Constitution. This includes constitutional provisions appearing in the North
Carolina Constitution which have no federal counterpart and which bear on the
interpretation of article I, section 27. See Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 378
(2002) (“[A]ll constitutional provisions must be read in pari materia.”). Therefore, our
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
interpretation of article I, section 27 is informed by other provisions of the North
Carolina Constitution addressing the purposes of criminal punishment and the rights
of North Carolina’s juveniles. We conclude that in light of provisions of the North
Carolina Constitution not found in the United States Constitution, sentencing a
juvenile who is neither incorrigible nor irredeemable to life without parole is cruel
within the meaning of article I, section 27.
¶ 56 First, sentencing a juvenile who can be rehabilitated to life without parole is
cruel because it allows retribution to completely override the rehabilitative function
of criminal punishment. Although the United States Supreme Court also relied on its
account of the penological justifications for punishment in holding certain sentences
unconstitutional as applied to juveniles, the North Carolina Constitution is unique
in expressly providing that “[t]he object of punishments” in North Carolina are “not
only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the offender and thus prevent crime . . . .”
N.C. Const. Art. XI, § 2 (emphasis added). A punishment which consigns an offender
to spend his or her entire life in prison is plainly unconcerned with “reform[ing] the
offender.” In the context of an adult defendant, such a punishment can typically be
justified—either because the nature of the defendant’s crimes means “justice”
requires such a harsh sentence, or because the State has concluded that adults who
commit certain of the most egregious criminal offenses cannot possibly be
“reform[ed].”
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 57 However, with “exceedingly rare” exceptions, that logic does not hold when
dealing with juvenile offenders. James, 371 N.C. at 97. Because juveniles have less
than fully developed cognitive, social, and emotional skills, they have lessened moral
culpability for their actions as compared to adults. Id. at 96. Because juveniles are
inherently malleable, they have a greater chance of being rehabilitated as compared
to adults. Further, juveniles who become involved in the criminal justice system are
disproportionately likely to have experienced various childhood traumas, such as
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which demonstrably impair their cognitive
processing and may be expressed, as ably summarized in an amicus brief by
Disability Rights North Carolina, “by the early onset of risk behaviors, dysregulation
of biological stress systems, alterations in brain anatomy and function, suppression
of the immune system, and potential alterations in the child’s epigenome.” Sentencing
the vast majority of juvenile offenders to spend their lives in prison is unjustifiable
given the “object of punishments” as defined by article XI, section 2. Given juveniles’
diminished moral culpability, it is unjustifiably retributive; given juveniles’
heightened capacity for change, it unjustifiably disavows the goal of reform.
Punishment which does not correspond to the penological functions enumerated in
North Carolina’s Constitution is cruel.
¶ 58 Second, sentencing a juvenile who can be rehabilitated to life without parole is
cruel because it ignores North Carolina’s constitutionally expressed commitment to
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
nurturing the potential of all our state’s children. This commitment is enumerated in
two different provisions of our constitution: article I, section 15, which states that
“[t]he people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State
to guard and maintain that right,” and article IX, section 1, which states that
“[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.” Our constitution’s recognition that “[t]he promotion of education
generally, and educational opportunity in particular, is of paramount public
importance to our state” reflects the understanding that “our collective citizenry”
benefits when all children are given the chance to realize their potential. Hart v.
State, 368 N.C. 122, 138 (2015). Of course, a child who commits a homicide will,
justifiably, be denied many life opportunities afforded to other children. But even the
child who commits a homicide can, with “exceedingly rare” exceptions, eventually
hope to acquire the knowledge, skills, and self-awareness needed to develop into a
different kind of person, someone who can make a positive contribution to “our
collective citizenry.” In light of our constitutional commitment to helping all children
realize their potential and our recognition of the interest of all North Carolinians in
so doing, it is cruel to sentence a juvenile who has the potential to be rehabilitated to
a sentence which deprives him or her of a meaningful opportunity to reenter society
and contribute to this state.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 59 To summarize, we hold that sentencing a juvenile who can be rehabilitated to
life without parole is cruel within the meaning of article I, section 27 of the North
Carolina Constitution. Our conclusion that juvenile life without parole is cruel is
bolstered by the recognition that “the United States is the only country in the world
that imposes juvenile life without parole sentences; such sentences are banned in
every other country and prohibited by human rights treaties.” Ben Finholt et. al,
Juvenile Life Without Parole in North Carolina, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 141,
143 (2020). It is also bolstered by empirical data demonstrating that an individual
juvenile offender’s chances of receiving a sentence of life without parole may be at
least partially attributable to factors that are not salient in assessing the penological
appropriateness of a sentence, such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography.
See, e.g., id. at 163 (describing results of regression analysis showing that juvenile
life without parole sentences “are more likely . . . in North Carolina counties with a
black population that is above average (20.9%) and in counties where the poverty rate
is below average (16.1%)”). In addition, based on the science of adolescent brain
development that this Court has previously recognized and our constitutional
commitments to rehabilitating criminal offenders and nurturing the potential of all
of North Carolina’s children, we also conclude that juvenile offenders are presumed
to have the capacity to change. “[L]ife without parole sentences for juveniles should
be exceedingly rare and reserved for specifically described individuals,” that is, those
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
who cannot be rehabilitated. James, 371 N.C. at 96–97. Thus, unless the trial court
expressly finds that a juvenile homicide offender is one of those “exceedingly rare”
juveniles who cannot be rehabilitated, he or she cannot be sentenced to life without
parole.
C. De facto life without parole is cognizable under Article I, Section 27
¶ 60 In this case, because the trial court found that he was “neither incorrigible nor
irredeemable,” Kelliher cannot be sentenced to life without parole consistent with
article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution. But Kelliher was not
technically sentenced to life without parole; he was given two consecutive sentences
of life with parole, each requiring him to serve twenty-five years in prison before
becoming eligible for parole. Furthermore, Kelliher did not raise an as-applied claim
asserting that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate based on the
particular circumstances of his case. Rather, Kelliher has argued that it is facially
unconstitutional under article I, section 27 to sentence any juvenile who can be
rehabilitated to life without parole, and that he is among the class of juveniles for
whom such a sentence is forbidden. Thus, to prevail on his state constitutional claim,
Kelliher must also establish that his sentence of a term of fifty years in prison before
becoming eligible for parole is a de facto sentence of life without parole—otherwise,
he has not received a sentence which, under his own theory, violates article I, section
27.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 61 Our recognition that article I, section 27 prohibits the imposition of a sentence
of life without parole for almost all juvenile offenders is rooted in the insight that
juvenile offenders are different from adult criminal defendants in ways that are
significant with respect to extreme sentences. What makes the juvenile offender
different is the fact that he or she is a child, not the nature or number of the crimes
he or she has committed. Indeed, the fact that the juvenile committed multiple crimes
(as opposed to a single offense) itself likely reflects distinctive features of youth. A
child who commits multiple criminal offenses is no less a child than a child who
commits a single criminal offense or a child who commits none. Cf. State v. Moore, 76
N.E.3d 1127, 1142 (Ohio 2016) (“Whether the sentence is the product of a discrete
offense or multiple offenses, the fact remains that it was a juvenile who committed
the one offense or several offenses and who has diminished moral culpability.”). The
protections afforded by article I, section 27 that are applicable to Kelliher emanate
from his status as within a category of offenders understood to have diminished moral
culpability. The fact that he committed multiple offenses does not change the fact
that he was, at the time he committed those offenses, a child understood to be less
morally culpable for his actions than an adult. These distinctive features of youth
compel us to recognize that a sentence which deprives a juvenile of any genuine
opportunity to earn his or her release by demonstrating that he or she has been
rehabilitated is, in effect if not in name, a sentence of life without parole within the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
meaning of article I, section 27.
¶ 62 A genuine opportunity requires both some meaningful amount of time to
demonstrate maturity while the juvenile offender is incarcerated and some
meaningful amount of time to establish a life outside of prison should he or she be
released. As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, “[s]everal courts have held de facto
[life without parole] sentences that do not conclusively extend beyond the juvenile’s
natural life are nonetheless unconstitutional sentences, and many of them have found
such sentences to exist when release (either through completion of the sentence or
opportunity for parole) is only available after roughly 50 years, and sometimes less.”
Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 641 (collecting cases); see also Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295,
352 (2018) (“Many courts have concluded that a sentence of a term of years that
precludes parole consideration for a half century or more is equivalent to a sentence
of life without parole.”). Indeed, a clear majority of jurisdictions to consider this issue
recognize de facto life without parole sentences as cognizable under the Eighth
Amendment or independent state constitutional provisions which therefore may
warrant relief under Graham and Miller or similar state-law principles. See Kelliher,
273 N.C. App. at 641; see also State v. Haag, 198 Wash. 2d 309, 327 (2021) (concluding
that a 46-year sentence is de facto life without parole because it deprives a juvenile
offender of a meaningful opportunity to reenter society and have a meaningful life);
State ex. rel Carr v. Wallace, 527 S.W.3d 55, 63–64 (Mo. 2017) (concluding that
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
mandatory concurrent sentences with parole eligibility after 50 years constituted a
de facto life without parole sentence subject to Miller’s sentencing requirements);
Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132, 141-42 (Wy. 2014) (concluding that consecutive
sentences, including a life sentence for homicide, providing parole eligibility after 45
years was de facto life without parole sentenced controlled by Miller); Casiano v.
Comm’r of Corr., 115 A.3d 1031, 1047–48 (Conn. 2015) (concluding that a juvenile’s
50 year sentence before parole eligibility was a de facto life without parole sentence
controlled by Miller). We agree with the Court of Appeals that a sentence of fifty years
before being eligible to be considered for parole denies a meaningful opportunity for
release for several reasons.
¶ 63 First, a fifty-year sentence means there is a distinct possibility that a juvenile
offender will not live long enough to have the opportunity to demonstrate that he has
been rehabilitated. Notably, the United States Sentencing Commission has defined
“a sentence length of 470 months or longer,” or 39 years and two months, as a de facto
life sentence because this sentence is “consistent with the average life expectancy of
federal criminal offenders.” United States Sentencing Commission, Life Sentences in
the Federal System (February 2015),
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-
projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf.
¶ 64 Moreover, juvenile offenders like Kelliher are distinct from the average person
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
of equivalent age. They are both disproportionately likely to have experienced
multiple and often severe childhood traumas, and they will spend the vast majority
of their lives within the walls of a prison. Both of these circumstances can
significantly reduce an individual’s life expectancy. See Naja H. Rod, et al,
Trajectories of childhood adversity and mortality in early adulthood: a population-
based cohort study. 396 (No. 10249) Lancet, 489–97 (2020) (finding that children who
experience multiple adverse experiences “had a 4.54 times higher all-cause mortality
risk . . . than that of children with a low adversity trajectory” with the most common
causes of death being “accidents, suicides, and cancer”); see also Michigan Life
Expectancy Data for Youth Serving Natural Life Sentences 2 (finding that the average
life expectancy for juveniles who received natural life sentences was 50.6 years),
http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/17-12441.pdf. Thus, in general, sentencing a
juvenile offender to fifty years in prison means he or she will die in prison before ever
having the chance to go before the Parole Commission.
¶ 65 Second, a fifty-year sentence means that even if the juvenile offender is
released from prison, he or she will have little chance of reintegrating into society in
any meaningful way. Having spent at least five decades in prison, a juvenile offender
released on parole will face overwhelming challenges when attempting to obtain
employment, secure housing, and establish ties with family members or the broader
community. See, e.g., Kelly Elizabeth Orians, “I’ll Say I’m Home, I Won’t Say I’m
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
Free”: Persistent Barriers to Housing, Employment, and Financial Security for
Formerly Incarcerated People in Low Income Communities of Color, 25 Nat’l Black L.
J. 23, 25–26 (2016) (“[R]esearch has also found dramatic unemployment rates
amongst formerly incarcerated people, in some cases as high as 77 percent after the
first year of release.”). Juveniles who enter prison at a young age and exit decades
later will need to navigate all the difficulties inherent in reentry after being
incarcerated, in the context of a dramatically different society than the one they
remember. Cf. People v. Contreras, 4 Cal. 5th 349, 368 (2018) (requiring juvenile to
serve fifty years before parole eligible does not provide “sufficient period to achieve
reintegration as a productive and respected member of the citizenry”). Given these
difficulties—and the diminished life expectancy of a juvenile offender who has spent
five decades in prison—a fifty-year sentence deprives juvenile offenders of any real
chance of establishing an independent life upon reentering society.
¶ 66 Having determined that fifty years is a de facto life without parole sentence,
we are still faced with the question of how long is too long. We acknowledge that
fixing the boundary between a lengthy but constitutionally permissible sentence and
an unconstitutional de facto life without parole sentence necessarily requires an
exercise of judgment. But it is the role of this Court to “give[ ] specific content” to
state constitutional provisions. Orth & Newby at 37. We conclude that in light of the
requirements of article I, section 27 and the practical realities as experienced by
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
juvenile offenders recounted above, any sentence or sentences which, individually or
collectively, require a juvenile to serve more than forty years in prison before
becoming eligible for parole is a de facto sentence of life without parole within the
meaning of article I, section 27.
¶ 67 The Court of Appeals held that any sentence or combination of sentences
exceeding twenty-five years before parole eligibility constituted a de facto sentence of
life without parole. Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 643. In reaching this conclusion, the
Court of Appeals relied principally on the fact that, following Miller, the General
Assembly established that a juvenile who is convicted of first-degree murder “shall
serve a minimum of 25 years imprisonment prior to becoming eligible for parole.” Id.
(citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19A). Although other state courts have looked to their
own Miller-fix statutes in defining what constitutes a sentence of de facto life without
parole, see e.g., People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 40, 137 N.E.3d 763, 774, we cannot
do so here because the North Carolina statute is silent on how to sentence multiple
counts of premeditated murder.8
¶ 68 Instead, we acknowledge that the General Assembly’s silence on this question
8 Other states have found legislative indications of what sentence would provide a
meaningful opportunity to obtain release in state statutes that provide for parole eligibility
at age sixty even when a defendant is sentenced to life without parole. See Carter v. State,
461 Md. 295, 356 (2018) (“In considering any of these benchmarks, we must also keep in mind
that the Supreme Court has equated the ‘meaningful opportunity for release based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ with a ‘hope for some years of life outside prison
walls.’ ”) (citing Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 213 (2016)).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
leaves it as a matter of constitutional interpretation. The fact that the legislature has
not spoken cannot relieve us of the obligation to interpret and apply the state
constitution’s guarantee of protection from cruel or unusual punishment in the
context of all the other state constitutional provisions that have relevance here. We
identify forty years as the threshold distinguishing a permissible sentence from an
impermissible de facto life without parole sentence for juveniles not found to be
irredeemable, based upon our understanding of the minimum amount of time
necessary to assure most juvenile offenders are afforded a genuine opportunity to
demonstrate they have been rehabilitated and, if released, to establish a meaningful
life outside prison walls.
¶ 69 We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, a maximum of forty years
of pre-parole eligibility strikes a balance between two competing―though not equally
weighty―interests: our interest in respecting the legislature’s choice to afford trial
courts the discretion to run multiple sentences either concurrently or consecutively,
see N.C.G.S. § 15A-1354(a), and our obligation to enforce the constitutional
prohibition on “cruel or unusual punishment.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 27; see State v.
Conner, 2022-NCSC-79, ¶ 61. A maximum of forty years before parole eligibility still
allows trial courts to sentence juvenile offenders to multiple consecutive sentences if
they have committed multiple crimes (up to 40 years in prison before parole
eligibility), while also accounting for the hallmark differences between children and
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
adults noted above that dilute the penological justifications for imposing extreme
punishments on juvenile offenders.
¶ 70 A forty-year maximum term before parole eligibility also supports the
rehabilitative goal of criminal punishment. We agree with the United States Supreme
Court that for rehabilitation to occur, juvenile offenders “must be given the
opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruptions; and, if it did
not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.”
Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 213. It is cruel to sentence a juvenile who has the potential
to be rehabilitated to a sentence which deprives him or her of a meaningful
opportunity to reenter society and contribute to our state. Cf. Naovarath v. State, 105
Nev. 525, 526 (1989) (“All but the deadliest and most unsalvageable of prisoners have
the right to appear before the board of parole to try and show that they have behaved
well in prison confines and that their moral and spiritual betterment merits
consideration of some adjustment of their sentences. Denial of this vital opportunity
means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are
immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and
spirit of [a juvenile offender] he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.”).
Establishing a constitutional maximum of 40 years of before parole eligibility ensures
that juvenile offenders will indeed have a realistic hope of a meaningful opportunity
for reentry.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 71 As an initial matter, life expectancy data suggests that a forty-year pre-parole
eligibility maximum will provide juvenile offenders with a realistic hope of
meaningful years of life outside prison walls. Because the oldest offenders considered
juveniles are seventeen years old, a forty-year term would mean that a juvenile
offender will—at latest—be initially eligible for parole beginning at the age of fifty-
seven. Although statistics indicate that nearly all fifty-seven-year-olds have more
years behind them than in front of them, the opportunity for parole at age fifty-seven
nevertheless adequately ensures that such offenders may hold a realistic “hope for
some years of life outside prison walls.” This demarcation aligns with data from the
U.S. Sentencing Commission noted above, which defines a sentence of at least 39
years and two months as a de facto life sentence.
¶ 72 Notably, ensuring that juvenile offenders maintain a realistic hope of some
meaningful years of life outside of prison encourages personal development and pro-
social behaviors during incarceration, such as furthering one’s education, gaining
technical or professional skills, and maintaining bonds with friends and loved ones.
Cf. Contreras, 4 Cal. 5th at 368 (“[A] juvenile offender's prospect of rehabilitation is
not simply a matter of outgrowing the transient qualities of youth; it also depends on
the incentives and opportunities available to the juvenile going forward.”). This
stands in stark contrast to a rule that would base the constitutional line solely upon
life expectancy, which would functionally—and cruelly—seek to extract the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
maximum amount of punishment out of juvenile offenders before releasing them
sometime shortly before their expected death. See Graham, 560 U.S. at 79 (“A young
person who knows that he or she has no chance to leave prison before life's end has
little incentive to become a responsible individual.”); see also Wayne A. Logan,
Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life Without Parole on Juveniles, 33 Wake
Forest L. Rev. 681, 712–714 (1998) (describing the “hopelessness and despair”
experienced by juvenile offenders serving life sentences who additionally face “far
greater risk of physical—and sexual—assault by older, more mature offenders”). Such
a rule would thwart rather than further the rehabilitative function of punishment.
¶ 73 Employment data likewise supports this constitutional limit. In addition to
“life, liberty, . . . and the pursuit of happiness,” our state Constitution enshrines all
people with another fundamental right: “the enjoyment of the fruits of their own
labor.” N.C. Const. Art. I, § 1. This constitutional provision, “although perhaps aimed
originally at slavery,” has provided the basis for constitutional challenges against
undue restraints on employment. Orth & Newby at 46; see also State v. Harris, 216
N.C. 746, 759 (1940) (a law that destroys the opportunity to make a living is “a legal
grotesquery”). Although they will face significant barriers, juvenile offenders who
have the opportunity for parole eligibility after forty years nevertheless may maintain
a realistic hope that they may be able to engage in gainful employment (and enjoy its
subsequent fruits) upon release from incarceration, as two existing employment legal
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
frameworks—social security and state retirement benefits—illustrate.
¶ 74 In the social security administrative context, “medical-vocational guidelines,
commonly referred to as ‘grids,’ distill and consolidate long-standing medical
evaluation policies employed in disability determinations.” Henderson v. North
Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, Div. of Social Services, 91 N.C. App. 527, 534
(1988). These grids “identify job requirements, interrelate a claimant’s physical
ability with his age, education, and previous work experience, and direct a conclusion
whether work exists that the claimant could perform.” Id.; see, e.g., Barnhart v.
Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 23 – 24 (2003) (summarizing the Social Security
Administration’s disability determination process); Harvey v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 162,
164 (4th Cir. 1987) (same).
¶ 75 While social security eligibility determinations are inherently fact-specific, the
grids and their accompanying guidelines provide useful context regarding the impact
of age, education, and work experience on employment prospects. For instance,
“[a]dvanced age [(55 and over)] and a history of unskilled work or no work experience
would ordinarily offset any vocational advantages that might accrue by reason of any
remote past education, whether it is more or less than limited education.” CFR
Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404 – Medical-Vocational Guidelines, § 200.00(d)
(https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-app-p02.htm). By contrast, “[t]he
presence of acquired skills that are readily transferable to a significant range of
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
skilled work within an individual’s residual functional capacity would ordinarily
warrant a finding of ability to engage in substantial gainful activity regardless of the
adversity of age, or whether the individual’s formal education is commensurate with
his or her demonstrated skill level.” Id. at § 200.00(e). Generally, a person of advanced
age, who is limited to sedentary work, with limited or less education, and unskilled
or no work experience, is deemed disabled and without employment prospects. Id. at
§ 201.01.
¶ 76 In the context of juvenile sentencing, these guidelines support establishing a
forty-year maximum term before parole eligibility for juvenile offenders. First, the
physical and mental impacts of a decades-long period of incarceration could
reasonably be considered a disabling condition, or at least a significant barrier to
future employment. Next, juvenile offenders are unlikely to have access to robust
advanced educational opportunities while incarcerated. Likewise, juvenile offenders
are unlikely to have access to many skilled labor opportunities while incarcerated. As
such, the social security guidelines suggest that the closer a juvenile offender gets to
“advanced age,” the less likely he is to be able to find gainful employment upon
release. However, the guidelines suggest that with the benefit of some education and
work experience while incarcerated, juvenile offenders with the opportunity for
parole after forty years may nevertheless maintain a realistic hope that they will be
able to find meaningful employment upon their reentry into society.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 77 The employment rationale is further supported by a second existing legal
framework: North Carolina state retirement eligibility. As the Court of Appeals
noted, other states have also looked at retirement age in assessing whether a
sentence for a redeemable juvenile is a de facto life without parole sentence. Kelliher,
273 N.C. App. at 641. Under North Carolina law, a person may retire with unreduced
retirement benefits after 30 years of creditable work with the state at any age, after
25 years of creditable work at age 60, and, most importantly, after five years of
creditable work with the state at age 65. See N.C.G.S. § 135-5(b21)(2)(a). Accordingly,
under our state retirement system, the minimum career recognized by law to entitle
one to retirement with benefits is five years of employment at age 65. In general,
across all sectors, the average retirement age in North Carolina is 63. See Average
Retirement Age by State, https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-
retirement-income-by-state.
¶ 78 As this data illustrates, a sentence consigning a juvenile to prison after age 60
will prevent that juvenile from completing what the people of our state consider to be
a minimal career of service in time to also retire at age 65. If a meaningful opportunity
for life after release must provide for “hope” and a chance for “fulfillment outside
prison walls,” “reconciliation with society,” and “the opportunity to achieve maturity
of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential,” Graham, 560 U.S.
at 79, then providing some opportunity for a non-incorrigible juvenile offender to seek
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
to work for a living upon release is necessary. Our constitution, statutes, and
demographic data demonstrate that a sentence deprives a person of a meaningful
opportunity to work if they are not eligible for parole before they turn sixty years old.
Recognizing that an individual released from custody after having spent their entire
adult life in prison will need some time to acquire a job, juveniles sentenced to more
than 40 years’ incarceration will not have a meaningful opportunity to work as that
is understood under North Carolina law.
¶ 79 To be clear, our interpretation of what constitutes cruel or unusual punishment
as applied to a juvenile offender does not extend to the context of adult offenders. Our
decision to recognize the de facto life without parole doctrine in this case does not
disturb our previous statements addressing sentences imposed on adult criminal
defendants that “[t]he imposition of consecutive life sentences, standing alone, does
not constitute cruel or unusual punishment” and that “[a] defendant may be convicted
of and sentenced for each specific criminal act which he commits.” State v. Ysaguire,
309 N.C. 780, 786 (1983). As we have explained, it is the unique characteristics of
youth—and the specific ways those unique characteristics relate to the penological
justifications for imposing punishment—that render consecutive life sentences cruel
as applied to juvenile offenders. A child who commits multiple offenses is still a child,
and the constitutionally salient features of youth with respect to sentencing cannot
be disregarded.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
¶ 80 Further, our recognition of the de facto life without parole doctrine does not
dispossess the trial court or other decisionmakers in the criminal justice system of
their discretion to weigh the circumstances surrounding a juvenile offender’s conduct,
including the number of offenses committed, in deciding that juvenile’s ultimate fate.
These circumstances are likely to be relevant in the district attorney’s initial charging
decision, in the jury’s deliberations, in the sentencing court’s initial determination of
whether the juvenile can be rehabilitated, in the Parole Commission’s disposition of
an offender’s request for release, and in the Governor’s decision to grant or deny a
clemency petition. “[T]he fact that the defendants were convicted of multiple crimes
may well be relevant in the analysis of individual culpability” when assessing
whether or not a juvenile homicide offender is one of the rare juveniles who cannot
be rehabilitated, Null, 836 N.W.2d at 73, but the fact that a juvenile offender was
convicted of multiple crimes is not, on its own, sufficient to consign that juvenile to
life in prison from the outset.
¶ 81 Finally, it bears repeating that an opportunity for consideration for parole is
no guarantee that parole will ever be granted. Instead, a decision regarding whether
a juvenile offender serving a life sentence will be released will be made based on the
factors and circumstances present at the most relevant time. Recognizing that our
state constitution’s prohibition of cruel or unusual sentences applies to de facto life
without parole sentences merely provides that consideration of the possibility of
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
parole can be made at a time when the non-incorrigible offender has a meaningful
opportunity to work and contribute to society.
¶ 82 Ultimately, the forty-year threshold reflects our assessment of the various
relevant constitutional and penological considerations in view of the best available
data regarding the general life expectancy of juveniles sentenced to extremely lengthy
prison sentences, including the United States Sentencing Commission report. 9 As
noted above, determining the boundary between a lengthy but constitutionally
permissible sentence and an unconstitutional de facto life without parole sentence
necessarily requires an exercise of judgment. Although none of the data or other legal
frameworks detailed above are determinative, these sources of information—in
tandem with broader considerations of penological interests, modern understandings
of juvenile development, and the evolving standards of decency that mark the
9 Attempting to use more individualized life-expectancy data based on gender and race
to assess what sentence might be constitutional for a particular juvenile could raise
significant practical and constitutional concerns. Therefore, we decline to do so. See Adele
Cummings & Stacie Nelson Colling, There is No Meaningful Opportunity in Meaningless
Data: Why It Is Unconstitutional to Use Life Expectancy Tables in Post-Graham Sentences,
18 U.C. Davis J. Juvenile L. & Policy 267, 282 (2014) (explaining that life expectancy is
affected by many “variables that have long been studied by social scientists but are not
included in U.S. Census or vital statistics reports—income, education, region, type of
community, access to regular health care, and the like . . . .”) In 2020, for example, the life
expectancy gap between non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks was 5.8 years; the gap
between men and women was 5.7 years. Center for Disease Control, Vital Statistics Rapid
Release, Number 015 (July 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr015-508.pdf.
Sentences based on race and gender differences could raise equal protection problems. See
United States v. Mathurin, 868 F.3d 921, 932 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining problems with
using mortality tables in this context).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Opinion of the Court
progress of a maturing society— usefully inform our application of the constitutional
protections at issue here.
IV. Conclusion
¶ 83 The crimes Kelliher committed and the pain he caused are irrevocable. He can
never replace what he took from Carpenter, Helton, their friends and families, and
the entire community of this state. He will spend decades of his life, and perhaps the
remainder of his life, in prison for his actions. But article I, section 27 of the North
Carolina Constitution does not permit us to ignore his potential for change. He cannot
be deprived the opportunity to demonstrate that he has become someone different
than the person he was when he was seventeen years old and at his worst. For the
foregoing reasons, and based specifically on our analysis of the independent
protections afforded by article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution, the
judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified and affirmed. Although we would
ordinarily leave resentencing to the trial court’s discretion, we agree with the Court
of Appeals that “of the two binary options available—consecutive or concurrent
sentences of life with parole—one is unconstitutional.” Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. at 644.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to enter two concurrent
sentences of life with parole.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
Chief Justice NEWBY dissenting.
¶ 84 Judicial activism is “[a] philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges
allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their
decisions, usu[ally] with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find
constitutional violations and are willing to ignore governing texts and precedents.”
Judicial activism, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). It is difficult to imagine a
more appropriate description of the action that the majority takes today.
¶ 85 What range of punishment is appropriate for someone who participates in the
brutal execution of multiple people? What branch of government is designed to enact
criminal justice policy? Today this Court, in a blatant stroke of judicial activism,
decides that it will legislate criminal justice policy. It determines the maximum
sentence for a seventeen-year-old who killed multiple people is the same as if he had
killed only one. It boldly declares that any harsher penalty is unconstitutionally
“cruel.” The majority legislates this sentence not through judicial review but by its
own determination of “evolving societal standards” and its desire to bring North
Carolina in line with its view of international law and what some other states have
done. In doing so, the majority casually disregards decades of our precedents and
ignores the plain language of various constitutional provisions.
¶ 86 The majority’s holding today sets dangerous criminal policy. It devalues
human life by artificially capping sentences for offenders who commit multiple
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
murders. Its decision feeds the growing trend of gangs using younger members to do
their killings as they recognize the leniency of criminal sentencing of minors. Further,
this decision removes any incentive to limit the murder of witnesses at the crime
scene.
¶ 87 During this time of rising juvenile violence, should this Court radically change
criminal sentencing policy? The majority’s tunnel view, which focuses on the age of
the murderer without considering the number or brutality of the crimes, removes
sentencing discretion from the trial court—the opposite of what United States
Supreme Court precedents require. Further, limiting punishment based solely on age
ignores other important circumstances. What about those who commit school
shootings? Or those on a multiday crime spree who commit multiple murders on
separate occasions? The majority’s fixation on age to the exclusion of all else says all
juvenile murderers will be treated the same—parole eligible after twenty-five years.
¶ 88 What is “cruel” in this case is not the punishment for the crimes but the tragic
irreparable loss because of the murder of a young man and his pregnant girlfriend
and the ongoing anguish of the victims’ families. Now the families are left to wonder:
For which murder is defendant escaping punishment?
¶ 89 Here the trial court did precisely what the constitution and relevant statutes
required it to do: it considered the fact that defendant was not yet eighteen years old
at the time of the murders and other mitigating factors. It then appropriately weighed
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
these factors against the senselessness of the murders and number of young people
killed. In concluding it should not ignore the fact that defendant was responsible for
the murder of more than one person, the trial court exercised its discretion to punish
defendant for both murders. As it observed, “there is no buy one, get one” for murders.
The trial court’s imposition of a separate consecutive sentence for the second murder
is not unconstitutional under either the federal or state constitutions. The trial court’s
decision should be upheld. I respectfully dissent.
¶ 90 This case stems from the premeditated murders of Eric Carpenter and his
pregnant girlfriend, Kelsey Helton. According to defendant, prior to the murders,
defendant and his acquaintance Joshua Ballard had multiple conversations about
robbing Carpenter, who was a known drug dealer. At one point, Ballard stated that
they would have to kill Carpenter to avoid being identified after the robbery.
Defendant offered to provide a handgun he had stolen to complete the killing.
Additionally, defendant informed one of his friends, Liz Perry, about the plan to rob
and murder Carpenter.
¶ 91 Ballard and Carpenter established the date and time of the “sale,” determining
they would meet behind a furniture store on 7 August 2001. That evening, defendant
drove Ballard and another friend, Jerome Branch, to the furniture store parking lot.
Once they arrived, they met Carpenter but also saw a marked police vehicle in the
parking lot. They decided to move the deal to Carpenter’s apartment, where his
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
pregnant girlfriend, Helton, also resided.
¶ 92 After arriving at the apartment complex, everyone went inside Carpenter’s
apartment. Helton left the apartment but came back in, and the conversation turned
to her pregnancy. While the evidence on what transpired next is conflicting,1
defendant says that Ballard ordered Carpenter and Helton to kneel in the kitchen
facing the wall and Carpenter and Helton were both shot and killed while the drugs
were collected. Thereafter, defendant and Ballard met in the parking lot to split the
stolen drugs. Later, they met with friends, including Perry, where they drank alcohol
and smoked marijuana laced with cocaine. At some point, defendant told Perry about
the robbery and murders.
¶ 93 A few days later, defendant was arrested in connection with the events.
Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery
with a dangerous weapon, and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a
dangerous weapon. Defendant pled guilty to all charges. He was sentenced to, inter
alia, two consecutive terms of life without parole for the murder offenses.
¶ 94 After the Supreme Court of the United States decided Miller v. Alabama, 567
U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), defendant filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief
1 “[Ballard] testified that he went to Carpenter’s apartment only for a drug deal, and
that [defendant’s] robbery and murder of the victims was unexpected. He stated that he did
not even know [defendant] had a gun with him that night.” State v. Ballard, 180 N.C. App.
637, 640, 638 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
(MAR), arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller rendered his sentence of
life without parole unconstitutional since he was a juvenile at the time the crimes
were committed.2
¶ 95 The resentencing hearing occurred when defendant was thirty-four years old
and had been incarcerated for around seventeen years. At resentencing, the State
offered evidence, including victim impact testimony, showing the impact of the
murders on Helton and Carpenter’s families. Defendant offered evidence showing the
efforts he had taken in prison to reform his conduct. After considering the evidence,
the trial court recounted the devastation to the victims’ families as well as the
improvement defendant had made while incarcerated. The trial court issued findings
on the circumstances surrounding the murders as well as the mitigating factors,
which included defendant’s age and time in prison. Having the ability to learn of
defendant’s improvements while incarcerated, the trial court concluded that
“defendant is neither in [sic] incorrigible nor irredeemable.” As for sentencing, the
trial court stated that “there are not bogos [for murder]. There is no buy one, get one.
There is no kill one, get one. There is not combination of sentences. There is no
consolidation of sentences.” The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive
sentences of life with the possibility of parole, one for the murder of Carpenter
2At the time of the offense, defendant was approximately seventeen years and four
months old.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
followed by one for the murder of Helton. According to this sentence, defendant must
spend at least fifty years in prison. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19A (2021) (providing
that life imprisonment with parole means that a defendant must serve at least
twenty-five years incarcerated for an offense before becoming eligible for parole).
¶ 96 Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing (1) that his “consecutive
life with parole sentences are excessive and violate the Eighth Amendment,” and (2)
that his “consecutive life with parole sentences are excessive and violate Article I,
Section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution.” The Court of Appeals generally
agreed, holding that “under Eighth Amendment jurisprudence: (1) de facto [life
without parole] sentences imposed on juveniles may run afoul of the Eighth
Amendment; (2) such punishments may arise out of aggregated sentences; and (3) a
sentence that provides for no opportunity for release for 50 or more years is cognizable
as a de facto [life without parole] sentence.” State v. Kelliher, 273 N.C. App. 616, 644,
849 S.E.2d 333, 352 (2020). Because the Court of Appeals recognized that this Court
has precedents analyzing the cruel and unusual punishment clauses the same under
the state and federal constitutions, the Court of Appeals stated that its “analysis . . .
applies equally to both” constitutional claims. Id. at 633 n.10, 849 S.E.2d at 344 n.10.
¶ 97 The State filed a notice of appeal based upon a constitutional question and, in
the alternative, filed a petition for discretionary review with this Court for review of
the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Defendant filed a conditional petition for discretionary
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
review. This Court dismissed ex mero motu the State’s notice of appeal but allowed
both petitions for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals
erred in concluding that defendant’s sentence violated both the United States
Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution.
¶ 98 On appeal, this Court “review[s] constitutional issues de novo.” State v.
Whittington, 367 N.C. 186, 190, 753 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2014). Additionally, where a
trial court imposes a sentence within the applicable statutory limit, the trial court’s
imposition of the sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Melton, 307
N.C. 370, 380–81, 298 S.E.2d 673, 680–81 (1983).
¶ 99 All political power resides in the people, N.C. Const. art. I, § 2, and the people
act through the General Assembly, State ex rel. Ewart v. Jones, 116 N.C. 570, 570, 21
S.E. 787, 787 (1895) (“[T]he sovereign power resides with the people and is exercised
by their representatives in the General Assembly.”). Unlike the Federal Constitution,
“a State Constitution is in no matter a grant of power. All power which is not limited
by the Constitution inheres in the people, and an act of a State legislature is legal
when the Constitution contains no prohibition against it.” McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254
N.C. 510, 515, 119 S.E.2d 888, 891 (1961) (quoting Lassiter v. Northampton Cnty. Bd.
of Elections, 248 N.C. 102, 112, 102 S.E.2d 853, 861 (1958), aff’d, 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.
Ct. 985 (1959)); see also Jones, 116 N.C. at 570–71, 21 S.E. at 787 (“The only
limitation upon this power is found in the organic law, as declared by the delegates
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
of the people in convention assembled from time to time.”). The presumptive
constitutional power of the General Assembly to act is consistent with the principle
that a restriction on the General Assembly is in fact a restriction on the people. Baker
v. Martin, 330 N.C. 331, 336, 410 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1991) (“[G]reat deference will be
paid to acts of the legislature—the agent of the people for enacting laws.”
(quoting State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 448, 385 S.E.2d 473, 478
(1989))). Thus, this Court presumes that legislation is constitutional, and a
constitutional limitation upon the General Assembly must be express and
demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g., Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122, 126, 774
S.E.2d 281, 284 (2015).
¶ 100 Further, “[t]here should be no doubt that the principle of separation of powers
is a cornerstone of our state and federal governments.” State ex rel. Wallace v. Bone,
304 N.C. 591, 601, 286 S.E.2d 79, 84 (1982). Understanding the prescribed powers of
each branch, as divided between the branches historically and by the text itself, is
the basis for stability, accountability, and cooperation within state government. See
State v. Emery, 224 N.C. 581, 584, 31 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1944) (“[Constitutions] should
receive a consistent and uniform construction . . . even though circumstances may
have so changed as to render a different construction desirable.”). Because that
stability “instills public confidence in governmental actions,” and because “[a]
violation of separation of powers occurs when one branch of government exercises the
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
power reserved for another branch of government,” this Court must exercise judicial
restraint and refrain from usurping the General Assembly’s policymaking role. State
ex rel. McCrory v. Berger, 368 N.C. 633, 651, 660, 781 S.E.2d 248, 260, 265 (2016)
(Newby, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
¶ 101 The North Carolina General Statutes address the sentencing requirements for
juvenile offenders who commit first-degree murder. These statutes were passed to
comply with the Eighth Amendment juvenile cases of the Supreme Court of the
United States. This Court has recently upheld this statutory scheme. See State v.
James, 371 N.C. 77, 99, 813 S.E.2d 195, 211 (2018). Specifically, the following statutes
are relevant. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19A provides that
a defendant who is convicted of first degree murder, and
who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, shall
be sentenced in accordance with this Part. For the purposes
of this Part, “life imprisonment with parole” shall mean
that the defendant shall serve a minimum of 25 years
imprisonment prior to becoming eligible for parole.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19A. Further, N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B provides, in relevant
part, as follows:
(a) In determining a sentence under this Part,
the court shall do one of the following:
(1) If the sole basis for conviction of a count
or each count of first degree murder
was the felony murder rule, then the
court shall sentence the defendant to
life imprisonment with parole.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
(2) If the court does not sentence the
defendant pursuant to subdivision (1)
of this subsection, then the court shall
conduct a hearing to determine
whether the defendant should be
sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole, as set forth in [N.C.]G.S.
[§] 14-17 [(2021)], or a lesser sentence
of life imprisonment with parole.
....
(c) The defendant or the defendant’s counsel may
submit mitigating circumstances to the court, including,
but not limited to, the following factors:
(1) Age at the time of the offense.
(2) Immaturity.
(3) Ability to appreciate the risks and
consequences of the conduct.
(4) Intellectual capacity.
(5) Prior record.
(6) Mental health.
(7) Familial or peer pressure exerted upon
the defendant.
(8) Likelihood that the defendant would
benefit from rehabilitation in
confinement.
(9) Any other mitigating factor or
circumstance.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B (2021). Moreover, N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a) provides
that a trial court
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
shall consider any mitigating factors in determining
whether, based upon all the circumstances of the offense
and the particular circumstances of the defendant, the
defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment with
parole instead of life imprisonment without parole. The
order adjudging the sentence shall include findings on the
absence or presence of any mitigating factors and such
other findings as the court deems appropriate to include in
the order.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a) (2021). Further, N.C.G.S. § 15A-1354(a) provides that
“[w]hen multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same
time, . . . the sentences may run either concurrently or consecutively, as determined
by the court.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1354(a) (2021).3
¶ 102 Thus, under our statutory scheme, the trial court considers all of the facts and
circumstances of a juvenile’s case, including the juvenile’s age, and exercises its
discretion to determine if the juvenile’s crime should be punished by life without
parole or life with parole. See James, 371 N.C. at 99, 813 S.E.2d at 211 (upholding
our statutory scheme). Simply put, the trial court has the discretion to sentence an
offender convicted of multiple offenses and can choose to impose those sentences
consecutively or concurrently. As such, N.C.G.S
§§ 15A-1340.19A, -1340.19B, -1340.19C, and -1354 combine to provide the trial court
3 Contrary to the majority’s assertion, this statutory scheme demonstrates that the
General Assembly has not been silent on how to sentence multiple counts of premeditated
murder committed by a juvenile defendant. The General Assembly simply has not enacted
the majority’s preferred scheme.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
with the authority to impose sentences of life imprisonment either with or without
parole on juveniles who commit multiple first-degree murders as well as the
discretion to run those sentences concurrently or consecutively. The trial court’s
discretionary decision will depend on the facts of each case and should be influenced
by the number of murders that a defendant committed. See N.C.G.S §§ 15A-1340.19B,
-1340.19C; see also James, 371 N.C. at 99, 813 S.E.2d at 211.
¶ 103 Defendant appears to characterize his complaint as a “facial challenge” to
portions of the relevant statutory sentencing scheme. When raising a constitutional
challenge, the party raising the challenge can bring a facial or as applied challenge
to the allegedly unconstitutional act. Understanding the difference between these two
challenges is critically important.
[A]n as-applied challenge represents a [party’s] protest
against how a statute was applied in the particular context
in which plaintiff acted or proposed to act, while a facial
challenge represents a [party’s] contention that a statute is
incapable of constitutional application in any context. This
distinction impacts the inquiry a court must make to
determine the validity of a challenged statute, because only
in as-applied challenges are facts surrounding the [party’s]
particular circumstances relevant. Furthermore, if
successful in an as-applied claim the [party] may enjoin
enforcement of the statute only against himself or herself
in the objectionable manner, while a successfully mounted
facial attack voids the statute in its entirety and in all
applications.
Frye v. City of Kannapolis, 109 F. Supp. 2d 436, 439 (M.D.N.C. 1999) (citations
omitted). Additionally, facial challenges are the most difficult on which to prevail
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
given the heavy burden on the challenger to show that there are no circumstances
under which a statute would be constitutional or valid. State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509,
564, 831 S.E.2d 542, 581 (2019) (Newby, J., dissenting).
¶ 104 The majority notes that “[defendant] did not raise an as-applied claim
asserting that his sentence was constitutionally disproportionate based on the
particular circumstances of his case” but rather raises only a “facial” challenge.
Clearly, however, the challenge is “as applied” to his sentence under the unique
circumstances of defendant’s case. There is no statute which defendant challenges
facially. For example, the statute which authorizes the trial court to exercise
discretion as to whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence is not
specifically a statute addressed to juvenile sentences. Thus, defendant actually
challenges the use of consecutive sentencing for a juvenile who commits more than
one murder if the trial court expressly finds that juvenile not to be “incorrigible or
irredeemable.” As such, this is an as-applied challenge.4
¶ 105 Defendant first argues the trial court’s imposition of two consecutive life with
parole sentences violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const.
4In State v. Conner, an analogous case challenging similar sentencing provisions, the
defendant clearly asserts an as-applied challenge. See State v. Conner, 2022-NCSC-79, ¶ 19.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
amend. VIII. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States has used this
provision to address the sentencing of juveniles. See Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct.
1307, 1318–19 (2021); Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 212–13, 136 S. Ct. 718,
736 (2016); Miller, 567 U.S. at 479, 132 S. Ct. at 2469; Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S.
48, 82, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2034 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578, 125 S. Ct.
1183, 1200 (2005); see also James, 371 N.C. at 99, 813 S.E.2d at 211 (upholding the
legislature’s statutory response to the precedents of the Supreme Court regarding a
juvenile defendant who was sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder).
According to the Supreme Court, the imposition of a life without parole sentence upon
a juvenile defendant who has been convicted of premeditated murder complies with
the Eighth Amendment so long as the trial court has the discretion to consider the
defendant’s youth as a sentencing factor.
¶ 106 In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of
imposing the death penalty on a juvenile offender. Roper, 543 U.S. at 555, 125 S. Ct.
at 1187. In that case, the defendant, who was seventeen years old when he committed
the murder, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Id. at 556–
58, 125 S. Ct. at 1188–89. Considering the sentence in light of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court
recounted the differences between juveniles and adults. Id. at 569, 125 S. Ct. at 1195.
The Court noted that juveniles are less mature, more vulnerable or susceptible to
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
peer pressure, and have “character [that is] not as well formed as that of an adult.”
Id. at 569–70, 125 S. Ct. at 1195. Because juveniles have a “diminished culpability”
as compared to adults, the Supreme Court concluded that any penological
justifications for imposing the death penalty would “apply to [juveniles] with lesser
force than to adults.” Id. at 571, 125 S. Ct. at 1196. Thus, the Supreme Court held
that “[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death
penalty on offenders who were under the age of eighteen when their crimes were
committed.” Id. at 578, 125 S. Ct. at 1200.
¶ 107 Thereafter, in Graham v. Florida, the Court considered “whether the
Constitution permits a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without
parole for a nonhomicide crime.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 52–53, 130 S. Ct. at 2017–18.
The Court noted that analyzing challenges under the Eighth Amendment required
the Court to evaluate whether the sentence was “disproportionate to the crime.” Id.
at 59, 130 S. Ct. at 2021. The Court emphasized the difference between homicide
offenses and all other offenses, with nonhomicide being the category at issue. Id. at
69, 130 S. Ct. at 2027. Thus, the Court distinguished between juveniles depending on
the type of crime committed. The Court did not look solely at the defendant’s age but
acknowledged that the nature and severity of the crime impacted its analysis. In
specifically looking at juveniles who committed nonhomicide offenses, the Court
determined that “penological theory is not adequate to justify life without parole for
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
juvenile nonhomicide offenders.” Id. at 74, 130 S. Ct. at 2030. The Court stated that
a juvenile nonhomicide offender must be given “some meaningful opportunity to
obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id. at 75, 130
S. Ct. at 2030. As such, the Court held that “[t]he Constitution prohibits the
imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit
homicide.” Id. at 82, 130 S. Ct. at 2034. Notably, “Graham did not prohibit life without
parole for offenders who were under 18 and committed homicide.” Jones, 141 S. Ct.
at 1314 (emphasis omitted).
¶ 108 Later the Court revisited juvenile sentencing, this time in the context of
statutorily mandated life without parole sentences for juveniles who committed
homicide offenses. Miller v. Alabama involved two defendants, both of whom were
fourteen years old at the time of the offenses and had been sentenced to life without
parole under mandatory sentencing schemes for homicide offenses. Miller, 567 U.S.
at 465–69, 132 S. Ct. at 2461–63. The Supreme Court recounted Roper and Graham
as cases that “establish[ed] that children are constitutionally different from adults
for purposes of sentencing.” Id. at 471, 132 S. Ct. at 2464. The Court noted that any
mandatory sentencing schemes applying to juvenile offenders, including the schemes
at issue here, “remov[ed] youth from the balance” and “prohibit[ed] a sentencing
authority from assessing whether the law’s [now] harshest term of imprisonment
proportionally punishes a juvenile offender.” Id. at 474, 132 S. Ct. at 2466. The Court
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
expressed that trial courts should have discretion to consider a juvenile’s
chronological age, maturity, appreciation of risks and consequences, home
environment, and susceptibility to peer pressure. Id. at 477–78, 132 S. Ct. at 2468. It
held “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in
prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” Id. at 479, 132 S. Ct. at
2469. The Court expressly declined to consider the argument of whether the Eighth
Amendment “requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles.” Id. at
479, 132 S. Ct. at 2469. Instead, the Court’s conclusion required that trial courts have
discretionary sentencing authority so they may examine a juvenile’s age when
determining his sentence.
¶ 109 Thereafter, the Court again considered a juvenile sentencing case to decide the
narrow issue of “whether [the holding in Miller] is retroactive to juvenile offenders
whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided.” Montgomery,
577 U.S. at 194, 136 S. Ct. at 725. The Court reiterated the principle from Roper,
Graham, and Miller that the age that an offender commits a crime, i.e., his or her
status as a juvenile at the time of the offense, is a sentencing factor to be considered
by the sentencing court. Id. at 213, 136 S. Ct. at 736. The Court concluded that
because Miller had announced a substantive rule about juvenile sentencing for
homicide offenses, “Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juvenile
offenders . . . must be retroactive.” Id. at 206, 136 S. Ct. at 732.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
¶ 110 Most recently, the Supreme Court revisited juvenile sentencing in Jones v.
Mississippi. There the defendant, a fifteen-year-old, murdered his grandfather and
attempted to cover up his own role in the crime. Jones, 141 S. Ct at 1312. The
defendant was originally sentenced to mandatory life without parole, but in the wake
of Miller, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded that Miller applied retroactively
to the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. Id. At the end of
the resentencing hearing, the trial court acknowledged it had discretion to impose a
sentence of less than life without parole but chose not to do so given the relevant
factors at issue concerning the defendant’s culpability. Id. at 1313.
¶ 111 When the case came before the Supreme Court of the United States, the
defendant argued that Miller mandated that a trial judge must either “(i) make a
separate factual finding of incorrigibility, or (ii) at least provide an on-the-record
sentencing explanation with an ‘implicit finding’ of permanent incorrigibility” in
order to sentence a juvenile defendant to life without parole Id. The Supreme Court
plainly rejected the defendant’s challenge and held that a sentencing judge is not
required to determine whether a juvenile defendant is incorrigible before sentencing
that defendant to life without parole. Id. at 1318–19.
¶ 112 In doing so, the Supreme Court reviewed its recent cases involving the Eighth
Amendment, stating that “Miller cited Roper and Graham for a simple proposition:
Youth matters in sentencing. And because youth matters, Miller held that a
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
sentencer must have discretion to consider youth before imposing a life-without-
parole sentence.” Id. at 1316. More specifically, the Court noted that “Miller
repeatedly described youth as a sentencing factor akin to a mitigating circumstance.”
Id. at 1315 (emphases added). The Court emphasized that this requirement in
Miller—that there must be a discretionary sentencing procedure for imposing life
without parole on a juvenile—did not extend beyond that, meaning Miller did not
require a court to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility before imposing a
sentence of life without parole. Id. at 1317–18. The Court elaborated that “[t]he key
assumption of both Miller and Montgomery was that discretionary sentencing allows
the sentencer to consider the defendant’s youth, and thereby helps ensure that life-
without-parole sentences are imposed only in cases where that sentence is
appropriate in light of the defendant’s age.” Id. at 1318. Miller and Montgomery did
not, however, require a finding of incorrigibility. Id.
¶ 113 The Court stated that the holding in Jones did not overrule Miller or
Montgomery. “Miller held that a State may not impose a mandatory life-without-
parole sentence on a murderer under 18. Today’s decision does not disturb that
holding. Montgomery later held that Miller applies retroactively on collateral review.
Today’s decision likewise does not disturb that holding.” Id. at 1321. The Court noted
the importance of analyzing Miller and Montgomery by looking to “their explicit
language [to address] the precise question before” the Court. Id. at 1322. The Court
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
refused to, however, go beyond the parameters of Miller or Montgomery to impose a
finding akin to what the defendant argued was necessary. Importantly, the Court
reiterated that
[d]etermining the proper sentence in [a homicide] case
raises profound questions of morality and social policy. The
States, not the federal courts, make those broad moral and
policy judgments in the first instance when enacting their
sentencing laws. And state sentencing judges and juries
then determine the proper sentence in individual cases in
light of the facts and circumstances of the offense, and the
background of the offender.
Under our precedents, this Court’s more limited role is to
safeguard the limits imposed by the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
Id. Thus, the Court noted that state legislatures set sentencing policies and that trial
courts effectuate those policies. Id. at 1323. It held that a determination of
incorrigibility is not required in order for a trial court to sentence a juvenile defendant
who had been convicted of murder to life without parole. Id. at 1313.
¶ 114 The cases summarized above reveal the following rule: the imposition of a life
without parole sentence upon a juvenile defendant who has been convicted of
premeditated murder is constitutionally permissible so long as the relevant statutory
scheme provides the trial court with the discretion to consider the defendant’s youth
as a sentencing factor. As Jones made clear, the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Graham, Roper, and Miller answered limited questions, and at most, stood for the
proposition that age is a factor which a trial court should be permitted to consider
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
when sentencing a juvenile defendant. See id. at 1316 (Miller required “ ‘only that a
sentencer follow a certain process—considering an offender’s youth and attendant
characteristics—before imposing’ a life without parole sentence.” (quoting Miller, 567
U.S. at 483, 132 S. Ct. at 2471)). Further, at no point has the Supreme Court
suggested that a defendant’s age must be the predominant sentencing factor. As such,
a trial court need not determine that a juvenile defendant is incorrigible or
irredeemable before using its discretion to sentence the defendant to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See id. at 1313. Rather, such a
sentence is constitutionally permissible so long as the trial court is permitted to
consider the juvenile defendant’s age and attendant characteristics.
¶ 115 Here in compliance with Miller, North Carolina’s relevant statutory scheme
provides trial courts with the discretion to consider youth as a factor when sentencing
juvenile defendants. This sentencing scheme was recently upheld by this Court. See
James, 371 N.C. at 99, 813 S.E.2d at 211. The trial court in the present case complied
with the statutory scheme by using its discretion to consider defendant’s youth in
addition to several other factors. In exercising its discretion, however, it determined
that two consecutive life with parole sentences were appropriate under these
circumstances.
¶ 116 The trial court thus exercised the exact type of judgment that Miller requires.
See Miller, 567 U.S. at 465, 132 S. Ct. at 2460. The trial court did not impose a
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
mandatory sentence but rather made an individualized determination in defendant’s
sentencing by considering defendant’s age at the time of the offenses and his ability
to be rehabilitated. The trial court balanced those factors by considering the
seriousness of the offenses here, i.e., the fact that defendant murdered multiple
people. The trial court emphasized “that there are not bogos [for murder]. There is no
buy one, get one. There is no kill one, get one. There is not combination of sentences.
There is no consolidation of sentences.” Thus, though the trial court, which had the
benefit of hearing of defendant’s progress during his roughly seventeen years of
incarceration, determined that defendant could likely be rehabilitated, it chose to
impose consecutive sentences to account for the multiple cold-blooded murders for
which defendant was responsible.5 Under Supreme Court precedents, such a
discretionary decision is constitutionally permissible.6
¶ 117 Moreover, defendant’s sentences in the present case also comply with the
5 It must be noted that the task of a trial court during resentencing when a defendant
has established a progress record during his period of incarceration is very different than
that of a court who is sentencing someone who recently committed the crime as a juvenile
and has no record in prison. Should or could a trial court determine a juvenile to be
incorrigible, and even if it must, should the trial court tell a juvenile its view at sentencing?
While the Supreme Court recognized that as part of the trial court’s consideration, it must
consider all the factors including its view of redeemability, it could be counterproductive and
cruel to say, “Juvenile defendant, I find you incorrigible and irredeemable.”
6 The majority believes if a defendant is rehabilitated, then he should be free from
incarceration. While rehabilitation is an important factor in granting parole, there are others
as well, such as the seriousness of the crime, which impacts what is just punishment and
deterrence. The trial court here considered all of the relevant factors.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
North Carolina Constitution. Predating the drafting of the Eighth Amendment by
thirteen years, North Carolina, like its neighboring original states, derived its
prohibition against cruel or unusual punishments from the English Declaration of
Rights. See John V. Orth and Paul Martin Newby, The North Carolina State
Constitution 84 (2d ed. 2013) [hereinafter State Constitution]. Article I, Section 27 of
the North Carolina Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.” N.C. Const.
art. I, § 27.
¶ 118 Like other provisions in the Declaration of Rights, this provision is given
clarity elsewhere in the constitution. Specifically, Article XI, Section 1 limits criminal
punishments to those specifically listed, including “death” and “imprisonment.” N.C.
Const. art. XI, § 1. “Because expressly listed here, none can possibly be considered
‘cruel or unusual’ within the prohibition of Article I, Section 27.” State Constitution
193; see also id. (“[W]hatever is greater than has ever been prescribed, or known, or
inflicted, must be excessive, cruel, and unusual.”); Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. 336,
352, 488 S.E.2d 249, 258 (1997) (“[A] constitution cannot violate itself.”). Notably, the
United States Constitution does not have a listing of acceptable punishments.
¶ 119 Article XI, Section 2, recognizing the needed balance between justice and
mercy, limits the use of the death penalty to “murder, arson, burglary, and rape . . .
if the General Assembly shall so enact.” N.C. Const. art. XI, § 2. The General
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
Assembly, generally in response to Supreme Court decisions, has limited the death
penalty to premeditated first-degree murder with aggravating factors.7
¶ 120 Thus, the express language of Article XI, Section 2 justifies the limitation on
the death penalty by recognizing that justice can be served for lesser crimes by
penalties other than the death penalty. While defendants may “reform,” the provision
says nothing about the length of prison sentences. Under the state constitution within
its express constraints, the General Assembly may enact whatever sentencing policy
it deems best. Given its history, Article I, Section 27 applies mainly to judges who
were traditionally granted broad discretion in sentencing matters. The General
Assembly, on the other hand, needs broad authority to “regulate criminal procedure
and to prescribe the punishment of crimes” so it is “free to respond to new social
threats and to reflect the changing perceptions of relative degrees of seriousness in
criminal offenses.” State Constitution 84. Therefore, the relevant statutory scheme,
which permits trial courts to impose consecutive life with parole sentences for
multiple convictions of first-degree murder, complies with our constitution.
¶ 121 Though the constitutional definition of cruel or unusual punishment explicitly
7 Contrary to the majority’s argument, Article XI, Section 2 provides no support for its
ruling. Likewise, Article I, Section 1 and the provisions regarding education, Article I, Section
15 and Article IX, are not relevant in the analysis of what is “cruel” under Article I, Section
27. Notably, the majority ignores the relevant state constitutional provisions which clearly
define what is cruel or unusual punishment. It instead focuses on the conjunctive “or,” which
is not relevant to a determination of what punishments are prohibited by our state
constitution.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
provides for greater punishments under our state constitution, this Court, in
recognition of the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, has held that claims under
the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 27 provide the same protection and are
analyzed in the same way. See State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 603, 502 S.E.2d 819, 828
(1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1111, 119 S. Ct. 883 (1999).8 This Court examines claims
under the Eighth Amendment as well as under Article I, Section 27 “in light of the
general principles enunciated by this Court and the Supreme Court guiding cruel and
unusual punishment analysis.” Id.; see State v. Peek, 313 N.C. 266, 275–76, 328
S.E.2d 249, 255 (1985) (reviewing an Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 27
claim under the same standard and ultimately determining that a defendant’s
sentence did not violate either constitution); State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 525, 243
S.E.2d 338, 352 (1978) (concluding a punishment was neither cruel nor unusual
under the state and federal constitutions without providing a separate analysis for
reaching its determination). Moreover, this Court has expressly declined to adopt a
8 “[T]he United States Constitution provides a constitutional floor of fundamental
rights guaranteed all citizens of the United States, while the state constitutions frequently
give citizens of individual states basic rights in addition to those guaranteed by the United
States Constitution.” State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 648, 503 S.E.2d 101, 103 (1998). Thus,
“the only significant issue for this Court when interpreting a provision of our state
Constitution paralleling a provision of the United States Constitution will always be whether
the state Constitution guarantees additional rights to the citizen above and beyond those
guaranteed by the parallel federal provision.” Id. Though “[i]n construing the North Carolina
Constitution, this Court is not bound by the decisions of . . . the United States Supreme
Court,” this Court gives “the most serious consideration to those decisions.” Id., 503 S.E.2d
at 104.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
reading of Article I, Section 27 that would provide broader protection than the Eighth
Amendment as “research reveals neither subsequent movement toward such a
position by either this Court . . . nor any compelling reason to adopt such a position.”
Green, 348 N.C. at 603 n.1, 502 S.E.2d at 828 n.1. While the majority disparages our
holding in Green, this Court recently cited with approval its analytical approach
addressing the cruel and/or unusual punishment clauses. See James, 371 N.C. at 78,
813 S.E.2d at 198.
¶ 122 In addition to the explicit statements in Green confirming that this Court
analyzes cruel or unusual punishment claims the same as Eighth Amendment claims,
doing so is consistent with the way this Court has analyzed other criminal-law related
provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Jackson, 348 N.C.
644, 653–54, 503 S.E.2d 101, 107 (1998) (choosing to analyze a confrontation claim
under the North Carolina Constitution in the same way as a Confrontation Clause
claim under the United States Constitution); State v. Lawson, 310 N.C. 632, 646, 314
S.E.2d 493, 502 (1984) (stating that the Court was not inclined to interpret the state
and federal constitutions differently in the context of an equal protection challenge
to the death penalty statute).
¶ 123 Historically, this Court has consistently deferred to the legislature’s criminal
policymaking authority and determined that unless a statute for sentencing is plainly
unconstitutional, a judge may impose any sentence within the statutorily proscribed
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
limits without violating the cruel or unusual punishments clause. See, e.g., State v.
Lovelace, 271 N.C. 593, 594, 157 S.E.2d 81, 81–82 (1967) (stating that a sentence that
does not exceed the maximum sentence prescribed by statute does not constitute cruel
or unusual punishment and thus does not violate the North Carolina Constitution);
see also State v. Ysaguire, 309 N.C. 780, 786, 309 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1983) (“Only in
exceedingly unusual non-capital cases will the sentences imposed be so grossly
disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and
unusual punishment. The imposition of consecutive life sentences, standing alone,
does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”). We have recognized that “it is
the role of the legislature and not the courts to decide the proper punishment for
individuals convicted of a crime.” Green, 348 N.C. at 605, 502 S.E.2d at 829.
¶ 124 Here running defendant’s sentences consecutively to allow him parole
eligibility at sixty-seven years of age does not violate the North Carolina Constitution
for the same reasons that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Established
precedents from this Court as well as the Supreme Court of the United States do not
mandate a defendant’s release at a certain age but instead require the trial court to
consider youth as a factor during sentencing. Because the trial court in the present
case considered defendant’s age during resentencing and imposed a statutorily
authorized sentence, defendant’s sentence does not violate the North Carolina
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
Constitution.9 Nor does the imposition of defendant’s sentence within the statutory
range constitute an abuse of discretion.
¶ 125 To enact its desired criminal penal policy despite the binding precedents that
would preclude the majority’s end result, the majority discards our holding in Green
by reasoning that its “time has passed.” Additionally, the majority ignores provisions
of the North Carolina Constitution that specifically define cruel or unusual
punishments and cites provisions that have nothing to do with punishment. It uses
those provisions in ways that have no basis in history or in the text of the provisions.
Under our state constitution, the General Assembly is tasked with determining
criminal justice policy. The majority plainly usurps the role of the legislature and acts
as a policymaker, weighing various public policy considerations to reach its desired
result. It establishes its preferred policy by setting an arbitrary forty-year limit for
sentences, effectively mandating one sentence of life with parole regardless of the
number or severity of the crimes. As precedents have consistently recognized, state
legislatures are the proper bodies to “make those broad moral and policy judgments
in the first instance when enacting their sentencing laws.” Jones, 141 S. Ct. at 1322.
Under existing precedents, the Court’s “more limited role is to safeguard the limits
imposed by” the Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 27, not to create policy. Id.
9 Of note, the imposed sentence would allow for defendant’s release during a natural
lifespan. See generally N.C.G.S. § 8-46 (2021) (providing life expectancy ages to be used as
evidence).
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
Nonetheless, the majority enacts its policy decision to grant more leniency to
convicted murderers, undermining the General Assembly’s role of protecting the
people of our state.
¶ 126 The majority today places itself in the General Assembly’s criminal justice
policymaking role and strips trial courts of their discretionary sentencing authority.
Despite the Supreme Court’s emphasis in Miller that trial courts must be afforded
the discretion to consider a juvenile offender’s age as a sentencing factor, the majority
now removes that discretion from the trial courts in this state. Specifically, the
majority holds as follows:
[I]t violates both the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and article I, section 27 of the North
Carolina Constitution to sentence a juvenile homicide
offender who has been determined to be “neither
incorrigible nor irredeemable” to life without parole.
Furthermore, we conclude that any sentence or
combination of sentences which, considered together,
requires a juvenile offender to serve more than forty years
in prison before becoming eligible for parole is a de facto
sentence of life without parole within the meaning of
article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution
because it deprives the juvenile of a genuine opportunity to
demonstrate he or she has been rehabilitated and to
establish a meaningful life outside of prison.
This declaration, however, is not supported by the Supreme Court’s Eighth
Amendment jurisprudence, the text or history of our state constitution, or any of our
prior decisions.
¶ 127 Notably, the majority errs by focusing almost exclusively on the age factor to
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
the exclusion of the other circumstances including the nature and seriousness of the
crime. It ignores that the Supreme Court has held that trial courts must conduct
individualized sentencing to determine whether a defendant guilty of premeditated
murder should receive life imprisonment with or without parole. The majority
determines that a finding by the trial court that defendant is “neither incorrigible nor
irredeemable” removes all sentencing discretion from the trial court. The mandatory
sentence thus becomes a single sentence of life with parole. The majority then
determines that life with parole is capped at forty years and any sentencing beyond
that constitutes a de facto life sentence. In the case of multiple murders, as here, it
rules that the maximum sentence is the same as the sentence for one murder—parole
eligible after twenty-five years.10
¶ 128 These policy determinations are for the General Assembly to address, not the
courts. The legislative branch is designed to weigh the competing penological
10 Not only does the majority create an arbitrary forty-year cap, but it also usurps the
role of the trial court by resentencing defendant in the first instance. In doing so, the majority
mandates that defendant become eligible for parole after serving only twenty-five years. It
refuses to craft a remedy that will enforce the trial court’s decision to punish defendant for
the second murder. Interestingly, however, this same majority provides a different remedy
in State v. Conner, an analogous case published on the same day as the present case. See
State v. Conner, 2022-NCSC-79, ¶ 64. Pursuant to the majority’s ruling in Conner, the
defendant there could serve the newly established forty-year maximum before becoming
parole eligible. See id. Thus, a juvenile who committed murder and rape could receive a longer
sentence than one who committed multiple murders and robberies. This inconsistency
illustrates one of the many reasons why this Court should not legislate criminal sentencing
policy. Therefore, the majority here should at least remand this case to the trial court to
resentence defendant in the first instance.
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
considerations. Capping the penalty for multiple murders at one sentence of twenty-
five years devalues human life. In the words of the trial court, “[t]here is no buy one,
get one” for murder. The majority’s holding feeds the rising trend of youth violence,
particularly the gang approach of assigning violent actions to younger members
because of growing leniency in sentencing. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011
National Gang Threat Assessment: Emerging Trends 18 (2012) (“Gangs have
traditionally targeted youths because of . . . their likelihood of avoiding harsh
criminal sentencing . . . .”); Daniel Pierce, High Point Police Report Increase in
Juvenile Crimes, Guilford County Schools Sees 8th Death to Gun Violence this School
Year, FOX 8 (Mar. 29, 2022), https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/high-
point/high-point-police-report-increase-in-juvenile-crimes-guilford-county-schools-
sees-8th-death-to-gun-violence-this-school-year/.
¶ 129 The majority’s reasoning is especially troubling in cases where a defendant
commits multiple murders in separate instances that occur days to months apart.
Under the majority’s reasoning, time served before parole eligibility seems to be
capped at the same forty-year limitation no matter how many murders were
committed and no matter how much time elapsed between the murders. What will
keep an individual from killing any potential witnesses before he is caught since the
time to be served for multiple murders is capped as the same for one murder? In the
majority’s view, multiple murders do not require longer time in prison before parole
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
eligibility. Indeed, the majority’s opinion may result in more instances of trial courts
exercising discretion to impose life without parole to ensure that defendants who
commit multiple murders do not gain parole eligibility in the same amount of time as
individuals who commit non-homicide offenses.
¶ 130 Further, the majority ignores the difficulty in determining a defendant’s
incorrigibility at initial sentencing. The resentencing in this case took place
seventeen years after the crime. Defendant had ample time to better himself. While
his actions are commendable, as recognized by the trial court, in the trial court’s view,
the positive actions by defendant did not completely offset the fact that he had
murdered multiple young people. If the trial court had been sentencing defendant
shortly after the crimes had been committed, the trial court would not have had
access to defendant’s future accomplishments. In most cases, a seventeen-year
history will not be available to a sentencing judge. Moreover, even in the worst of
circumstances, is it good policy for a judge to tell a juvenile defendant, “You are
irredeemable”? What psychological impact would that statement have? Would not
such a statement be cruel?
¶ 131 The majority’s decision is not supported by the federal or state constitutions.
Thus, the majority attempts to find support for its criminal justice policy by looking
to other states and foreign countries. However, finding other states or countries with
policies that the majority prefers, but with constitutions entirely different than our
STATE V. KELLIHER
2022-NCSC-77
Newby, C.J., dissenting
own, does not justify ignoring our state constitution’s express provisions, violating
separation of powers, and stripping our General Assembly of its policymaking
authority. This Court is not the proper place to make criminal justice policy. Rather,
our task is to apply the law as it already exists. If the majority properly understood
this Court’s role, it would conclude that the imposition of consecutive life with parole
sentences for two counts of first-degree murder does not violate the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 27 of the North
Carolina Constitution. Instead, the majority disregards our constitution and
precedents; it assumes the role of the legislature and misuses this Court’s authority
by enacting its desired criminal justice policies. I respectfully dissent.
Justices BERGER and BARRINGER join in this dissenting opinion.