La. Supreme Court says life sentences stand for teen killers

Two Eunice men who killed as teenagers and are sentenced to life in prison on Tuesday suffered a setback in chances for re-sentencing.
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. Supreme Court ban on automatically sentencing juvenile killers to life in prison with no chance of parole or early release does not apply to about 200 childhood murderers in state prisons.
Those include Chad Young and Andrew Hundley, Eunice teenagers when they murdered their victims years ago.
Young killed his parents and a brother; Hundley murdered a teenage girl.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that mandatory life for teen killers is cruel and unusual punishment.
It did not ban the punishment, just barred it as an automatic sentence without consideration of any other factors.
The state court ruled 5-2 that the federal ruling does not apply retroactively to those imprisoned prior to the federal opinion.
Following the ruling last summer, many Louisiana inmates moved for re-sentencing.
In St. Landry, Young underwent several months of evaluation though a court hearing has not yet been set.
A hearing is scheduled later this month for Larry
Sylvester, an inmate from Opelousas who has been in prison since the 1970s after conviction as a teen killer. That may now be moot.
The Louisiana court ruled retroactive consideration applies only where a substantive issue is at stake, not when the contested issue is a procedural one.
It said the U.S. Supreme Court did not bar sentences of life without the possibility of parole, it merely altered the means of getting there — replacing an automatic mandate with a requirement to hold a hearing. Changes in procedures do not apply retroactively.
In the wake of the U.S. ruling, the Louisiana Legislature this year amended the law to allow consideration of less-than-life sentences.
The revision states that a person convicted as a juvenile becomes eligible for parole after serving 35 years,  if in good standing.
The ruling said the Legislature never intended the new law to apply to old cases.
Chief Justice Bernette Johnson and Justice Jefferson Hughes dissented.
Appeal to the federal court system is considered likely