Resentencing Evaluations

Applying developmental science and juvenile‑justice precedents to sentencing reconsiderations.

Courts may order resentencing evaluations for individuals who received long sentences as juveniles or young adults, particularly those serving life without parole or lengthy terms. Evaluations consider developmental immaturity, brain development, trauma, and rehabilitation efforts. They also inform mitigation at initial sentencing.

What you receive

Developmental history and neuropsychological evaluation, considering brain maturation into the mid‑twenties
Assessment of immaturity, vulnerability to peer influence, family and community environment, and potential for growth and rehabilitation
Analysis of mitigating factors such as trauma, abuse, or mental‑health disorders
Recommendations for alternative sentencing, treatment, or conditional release, if desired

Our Process

We review trial transcripts, legal reports, educational and medical records, and prior psychological assessments.
We conduct developmentally informed interviews with the individual, exploring maturation, insight, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.
We consult with family members, teachers, treatment providers, and correctional staff.
We may use neuropsychological tests, trauma measures, and risk assessments (e.g., Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, SAVRY).
A comprehensive report is provided. Timelines vary depending on case complexity and court schedules; please contact us to discuss expected timeframes. We testify regarding mitigating factors and resentencing considerations.

FAQs

Cases involving individuals sentenced as juveniles to life without parole or lengthy terms may be eligible under Miller v. Alabama, Franklin, and People v. Heard.
In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court held that sentencing courts must consider a juvenile’s youth, immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation before imposing such severe penalties.
In Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the Supreme Court made Miller retroactive, meaning individuals sentenced as juveniles to life without parole before 2012 can now seek resentencing or parole consideration. This case established that Miller created a substantive constitutional rule, not just a procedural one.
A People v. Franklin (2016) hearing allows individuals sentenced as juveniles (even if not to life without parole) to create a record of mitigating evidence about their youth and development for use by the parole board. This includes documentation or testimony about the individual’s upbringing, environment, trauma, mental health, and rehabilitation.
People v. Heard (2023) clarified that even if a person has already served their sentence or is serving a determinate term, they may still be entitled to a Franklin hearing to ensure the record reflects youth-related mitigating evidence for future parole consideration. The decision emphasized the continuing importance of a full record of youth factors.
Miller specifically addressed mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, but its reasoning (that youth diminishes culpability) has influenced resentencing and parole eligibility for many young offenders, even those who did not receive life sentences.
Eligibility depends on your age at the time of the offense, the length and type of sentence, and whether you have had a prior opportunity to present mitigating youth evidence. An attorney or post-conviction specialist can review your case to determine eligibility.