MICHAEL JESSUP V. DAVID SHINN, No. 18-16820 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner challenged the life sentence that an Arizona court imposed on Petitioner for a crime he committed when he was 17-years-old. The state post-conviction court rejected Petitioner’s Miller claim, finding that unlike the individuals sentenced in Miller, Petitioner received an individualized sentencing hearing. The district judge held that the state court’s denial of post-conviction relief was an unreasonable application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment granting habeas corpus relief to Petitioner. The court held that the state court’s application of Miller was reasonable. Here, the sentencing judge considered Petitioner’s youth and characteristics and concluded that Petitioner warranted a life sentence without the possibility of release. Petitioner argued that there was no practical difference between a sentence of life with the possibility of release and a sentence of natural life. Nonetheless, the court reasoned that despite the practical result, Miller does not mandate resentencing.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment granting habeas corpus relief to Petitioner Michael Paul Jessup, who challenged his sentence of life without the possibility of any form of release, which an Arizona state court imposed for the first-degree murder Petitioner committed when he was 17 years old. The district judge held that the Arizona courts’ denial of post-conviction relief was contrary to and an unreasonable application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), in which the Supreme Court held that, before a sentencer may impose a sentence of life without parole on a defendant who committed a crime as a juvenile, the Eighth Amendment requires that the defendant receive an individualized sentencing hearing during which the sentencer considers the defendant’s youth and its attendant circumstances.
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.