SCOTUS ruling continues to impact Iowa inmates

A ruling earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the sentencing of non-homicide juvenile offenders continues to ripple through the Iowa  judicial system.

In an opinion released Friday, justices on the Iowa Supreme Court have reduced the sentence of Julio Bonilla, who was convicted of first degree kidnapping in 2005. Instead of serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, Bonilla, who was 16 at the time of the offense, will now have the opportunity to be freed. The reduction was firmly based in Graham v. Florida, a case heard by the high court in May that ruled states may not sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole for non-homicide cases.

… Bonilla’s claim falls squarely within the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Graham. Bonilla was convicted of the nonhomicide crime of kidnapping in the first degree, a class “A” felony. Bonilla was sentenced to life in prison without parole pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.1, which provides that an individual convicted of a class “A” felony will be sentenced to life and “shall not be released on parole unless the governor commutes the sentence to a term of years.” Graham applies retroactively to Bonilla because it is a new rule of substantive law clarifying the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. …

The federal decision took note of an earlier case, Roper V. Simmons, in which the Court ruled that juveniles committing homicides could not receive the death penalty. Short of that maximum sentence, the highest sentence a juvenile could receive would be life without parole — the same punishment someone who had not committed homicide would receive. Although the approach has been criticized by strict constructionists, the court also considered the absence of such sentences in other countries and, finally, broadened the scope of its review to all cases involving juveniles instead of limiting it to the Florida case being heard. (Because the ruling was not limited to the specific case before the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority, but endorsed only a case-by-case applicative approach.) No exceptions were made to the mandate that states could not provide such sentences to juveniles who were not convicted of killing.

In writing the opinion, U.S. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that “a State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life, it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.”

What the federal ruling did not establish was firm guidelines to the states on its mandate that juvenile offenders be offered a chance “to demonstrate growth and maturity.” And, exactly what such a mandate means in reference to state law and parole timing is something the Iowa Supreme Court believes needs legislative review.  For now, the justices have reduced Bonilla’s sentence to life with the possibility of parole and, by applying existing state law, acknowledge that such a process could begin immediately.

… By striking the unconstitutional statutory provisions which prevent Bonilla from ever receiving consideration for parole, Bonilla will become eligible for an annual case review immediately. He will therefore be eligible for a parole case review before an individual convicted of second degree kidnapping. When a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, we sever the offending portions from the enactment and leave the remainder intact. … We leave to the legislature whether and how to correct this apparent inconsistency.

While Bonilla’s case is one of the first to be brought before the Iowa Supreme Court, it is extremely unlikely to be the last. Assistant State Appellate Defender Theresa R. Wilson said there are seven such cases that may eventually be elevated for additional review based on Graham.

“Also, what really has not been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court is if sentences of life without parole are violations of the 8th Amendment for juveniles who commit homicide,” Wilson told The Iowa Independent by phone Friday.

One case that might eventually provide an answer to that question has its origins in Iowa. A March appeal trial has been scheduled for Ruthann Veal, who was convicted of the 1993 first-degree murder of a 66-year-old Waterloo woman. At the time of the murder, Veal was 14.

It was also an Iowa case that first forced the federal ruling to be applied retroactively, and paved the way for offenders like Bonilla to have their arguments of illegal sentencing heard by the court. Jason Means was found guilty of kidnapping and second degree murder during an incident when he was 17, and was ultimately sentenced to life without parole on the kidnapping charge. Means challenged his sentence under Graham with the help of Davenport Attorney Angela Fritz Reyes, and received an answer in September 2010: The federal ruling should be applied to earlier cases because, upon collateral review by the 7th Judicial District Court in Scott County, the SCOTUS ruling was found to be a “new rule of substantive law.”