Resentencing of a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed when he was a juvenile; Miller v Alabama; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to present expert witness testimony about adolescent brain development; Denial of postjudgment request for funds to retain an expert; Whether life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for a juvenile offender violates the federal & state constitutional prohibitions on cruel & unusual punishments; People v Carp

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing defendant-Clemons to LWOP, that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that an LWOP sentence for a juvenile offender does not violate the constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment. He was convicted as a juvenile of felony murder and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to a mandatory LWOP sentence for the first-degree felony murder conviction, to be served consecutively to a term of two years for the felony-firearm conviction. After Miller and other legal developments, the prosecution moved to resentence him. It sought a LWOP sentence while defendant unsuccessfully sought a term-of-years sentence. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by resentencing him to LWOP and erred by holding that his “age and family and home environment were not mitigating factors.” The court held that “although defendant’s family and home environment was a mitigating factor, the evidence and testimony regarding defendant’s age, the circumstances of the homicide offense, defendant’s ability to interact with police officers and attorneys, and the possibility of rehabilitation did not support that defendant’s crime reflected his transient immaturity.” It determined that the “trial court considered the Miller factors and applied the law to the facts here before imposing the” LWOP sentence, and that this “sentence was within the range of principled outcomes.” Affirmed.