Ohio Supreme Court Reverses 33-Year Sentence for Defendant Age 17 At the Time of His Offense
Recent Cases in Law and Neuroscience, Curated by the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior and the Shen Neurolaw Lab with support from the Dana Foundation
On December 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the sentence of Kyle Patrick, who had been sentenced to 33 years for murder and robbery, because of his youth at the time of the offense.
Patrick was charged with the fatal shooting of Michael Abinghanem in 2012, when Patrick was 17 years old. He was tried as an adult and pled guilty to murder and aggravated robbery. He moved to withdraw this guilty plea prior to sentencing, but the trial court denied this motion and sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole after 15 years. He appealed the decision to deny his motion to withdraw his plea, and an appeals court reversed the decision. Patrick then had a jury trial, which found him guilty on all counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 33 years. Patrick appealed.
On appeal, Patrick asserted that “the trial court had failed to consider his youth when it imposed a life sentence and therefore his sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.” The appeals court rejected this argument and affirmed Patrick’s sentence, stating that “a trial court is not required to consider the age of a defendant when issuing a felony sentence.” The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted discretionary review of Patrick’s proposition.
Patrick argued that “there is nothing constitutionally distinguishable about this case that warrants a court in failing to account for youth as a mitigating factor in its sentencing decision.” The state countered that because Patrick was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), the trial court was not required to consider his youth during sentencing.
In its opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court cited its decision in State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478, 2014-Ohio-849, 8 N.E.3d 890, a juvenile LWOP case in which it held that “youth is a mitigating factor for a court to consider when sentencing a juvenile” in all cases. The Ohio Supreme Court found that Patrick’s sentence of 33 years “triggers the same scope of Eighth Amendment concern and sentencing consideration that we recognized in Long.”
Recognizing the Unites States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama prohibiting mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that “If, as Miller instructs, youth and its attendant characteristics must be considered when a court imposes its harshest penalties… then youth is also a necessary consideration when a sentencing court determines at what point parole eligibility should be available during a life sentence.” The Ohio Supreme Court found that “[a]ny suggestion that Patrick’s eligibility for parole in his 50s gives him a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release,’… is misplaced.”
As the court found that “it cannot be determined from the record whether, and if so, how, the trial court considered Patrick’s youth because the trial court failed to articulate any such consideration in the sentencing record[,]” the court reversed the judgement of the trial court and remanded Patrick’s case for resentencing.
One judge concurred in the judgement but disagreed with the majority’s finding that Patrick’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The judge stated that “I do believe that it is time for Ohio lawmakers to undertake a meaningful study and review of the sentencing of juveniles tried as adults. But ours is not the power to rewrite sentencing laws.”
Citation: State v. Patrick, 2020 WL 7501940
Keywords: Ohio, Miller v. Alabama, Eighth Amendment, LWOP, adolescent brain, young adult
This post is the 68th post as part of an ongoing Center for Law, Brain & Behavior (CLBB) series tracking the latest developments in law and neuroscience cases. To see previous posts about recent cases, see the full case archive on the CLBB website. To see updates on legal scholarship, see the Neurolaw News, hosted by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. This project is made possible through support of the Dana Foundation.
