Cited by

That same year, that petitioners “are entitled to evidentiary hearings on their Rule 32.1(g) petitions [when] they have made colorable claims for relief based on Miller.” Id.

¶7 A defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief when “[t]here has been a significant change in the law that if determined to apply to defendant’s case would probably overturn the defendant’s conviction or sentence[.]” ¶ 9 (2016) (quoting Rule 32.1(g)).

¶5 Subsequently, this Court held that Miller and Montgomery created “a new substantive rule of constitutional law” requiring trial courts to distinguish crimes that reflect “irreparable corruption” from those that reflect the “transient immaturity of youth” before imposing a natural life sentence for juvenile murderers.

¶ 30 (2016) (Bolick, J., concurring) (“We should treat the Court’s forecast that irreparable corruption will not be found in the ‘vast majority’ of cases as speculative and dictum.”).

¶ 18 (2016), we also grant relief.

On remand, this court requested supplemental briefing on the Arizona Supreme Court’s which set forth the standard in Arizona for resentencing under Miller and Montgomery.

For the following reasons, we grant review and relief

For the following reasons, we grant review and grant relief

¶ 9 (2016) (internal citation omitted).

Id.; ¶ 26 (2016) (Bolick, J., concurring) (“Searching in vain to find such a substantive rule in Miller, the Court instead created one in Montgomery, reasoning that the unannounced rule that courts make a finding of ‘irreparable corruption’ before sentencing a juvenile offender to life imprisonment without parole was

See Valencia , , ¶ 17, , vacated , , ¶ 18

See, ¶ 15 (2016) (United States Supreme Court's announcement of "a new substantive rule of constitutional law" that was at odds with Arizona's sentencing scheme); -83 (1991) (disapproving longstanding recommended jury instruction).

er and Montgomery, our supreme court clarified in Valencia that in the Rule 32 context, after they present a colorable claim for relief, defendants sentenced as juveniles to natural life are entitled to a Rule 32.8(a) evidentiary hearing “to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their crimes did not reflect irreparable corruption but instead transient immaturity.” ¶ 18 (2016).3 If defendants can meet their burden and establish that their crimes reflected transient immaturity, then

State v. Valencia , , ¶¶ 14-15

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016); ¶ 1 (2016).

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016); ¶¶ 14-15 (2016).