Com. v. Young, A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a combined eighty-year sentence was a functional LWOP sentence where the defendant would not be eligible for parole until age eighty-five, exceeding the defendant’s life expectancy
• holding that an 80-year sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole and unconstitutional
• holding that an 80-year sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole and unconstitutional
• concluding two consecutive forty-year sentences violated Graham because the consecutive sentences were “the functional equivalent of a life sentence without parole”
• reversing consecutive forty-year sentences because there was no meaningful opportunity for release required under Graham
• reversing consecutive forty-year sentences because there was no meaningful opportunity for release required under Graham

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).