Evan Miller v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 11/08/2013 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014 _________________________ CR-06-0741 _________________________ Evan Miller v. State of Alabama Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court (CC-06-68) On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States WINDOM, Presiding Judge. Evan Miller was 14 years old when he committed murder made capital because it was committed during the course of an arson, see ยง 13A 5 40(a)(9), Ala. Code 1975. On August 27, 2010, this Court affirmed Miller's capital-murder conviction CR-06-0741 and his resulting mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Miller v. State, 63 So. 3d 676, 687 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed this Court's judgment affirming Miller's mandatory sentence and held that "the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders." Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012). In response to Miller, the Alabama Supreme Court decided Ex parte Henderson, [Ms. 1120140, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013), in which it established a sentencing procedure that provides for a sentence of less than life in prison without the possibility of parole that circuit courts must use when sentencing juveniles who have been convicted of capital murder. Thus, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller, Miller's sentence is reversed, and this cause is remanded with instructions for the circuit court to conduct a new sentencing hearing under the procedure established in Henderson, ___ So. 3d at ___. REVERSED AS TO SENTENCE AND REMANDED. 2 CR-06-0741 Welch, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, JJ., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
