Cited by

¶ 16 (2003) (); ¶ 43 (2020)

Although Hylton argues this creates a “minimum sentence expiration date” of 25 years, the term of Hylton’s sentence is “indeterminate life,” not “25 years.” 12 ¶¶ 4, 49 (2020) (noting defendant was sentenced to “consecutive life sentences” who was sentenced to “three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release for twenty-five years”); ¶¶ 15–17 (App. 2014) (statute effectively created an “indeterminate life sentence”

Later, the superior court extended the stay pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98 (2021), and the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in the joined cases of State v. Clay, State v. Kasic, and State v. Soto-Fong (collectively, ).

and that because the Board of Executive Clemency did not provide him with “a meaningful opportunity for release” from his de facto life sentence by failing to consider his youth and any subsequent rehabilitation, he is “entitled to be resentenced to concurrent sentences.” After briefing, the superior court summarily dismissed his PCR petition, ¶ 44 (2020), that the imposition of de facto life sentences on juvenile offenders does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

I. The Majority Needlessly Extends Federal Supreme Court Caselaw ¶33 Previously, this Court has declared that we are bound to follow “applicable holdings of United States Supreme Court decisions.” ¶ 32 (2020); ¶ 39 (Ariz. 2024) (Beene, J., dissenting) (“[W]e are bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment .

See U.S. Const. art. VI; ¶ 32 (2020) (“This Court .

¶ 27; (“[G]enerally, courts do not permit defendants to ‘stack’ their crimes to generate an Eighth Amendment claim.”).

The State thereafter filed a motion to dismiss, holding that Miller and Montgomery did not prohibit a juvenile from being sentenced to consecutive sentences exceeding his or her life expectancy.

But the State later moved to vacate the evidentiary hearing and dismiss the PCR petition, and Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021).

¶21 Our supreme court recently considered and rejected Alvarez’s argument in State v. Soto-Fong, to hold that Miller, Graham, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), did “not prohibit consecutive sentences imposed for separate crimes when the aggregate sentences exceed a juvenile’s life expectancy.” ¶ 50 (2020).

¶4 When the court lifted the stay order, the State moved to dismiss the petition

at 599 ¶ 108; -6 ¶¶ 10–13 (2020) (expressing concerns over the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment analysis).

¶ 42 (2020) (“Our primary purpose when interpreting the Arizona Constitution is to ‘effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.’” ().