Sanders v. Eckstein

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his 140-year sentence on rape charges that involved four women, where he was 15 years old at time of offenses, and where sentencing judge observed that defendant’s sexual assaults were some of most horrific that he had seen while on bench. In his habeas petition, defendant argued that sentence did not conform with either Graham, 560 U.S. 48 and/or Miller, 567 U.S. 460, since sentencing court precluded him from any meaningful opportunity of parole prior to 2030 and failed to meaningfully consider his youth and prospect of rehabilitation when imposing 140-year sentence. However, state court could properly find no Graham violation, where defendant asserted that he had 63-year life expectancy and his first parole opportunity would come at age 51. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish any Miller violation, where: (1) defendant neither committed homicide nor received mandatory life sentence; (2) defendant’s 140-year sentence was discretionary and not mandatory; and (3) defendant’s sentence had possibility of parole.