Youngstown Daily Legal News

Life without parole not an option for juvenile offender, 89-year sentence permitted

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 13, 2012

A 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel recently ruled that a juvenile convicted of a crime other than homicide may not be sentenced to life without parole, but may be ordered to serve consecutive, fixed terms that could be the “functional equivalent of life without parole.”

The three-judge panel held that Chaz Bunch must serve his sentences for kidnapping, aggravated robbery and rape, totaling 89 years without parole and the judges determined the sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

“Bunch is not entitled to habeas relief. Even if we assume that (Graham v. Florida) applies to Bunch’s case on collateral review, that case does not clearly establish that consecutive, fixed-term sentences for juveniles who have committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole,” 6th Circuit Judge John Rogers wrote for the court.

Case summary details that in 2001 a 22-year-old Youngstown State University student parked her car near her workplace, and a man ran at her pointing a gun and forced her into the car’s passenger seat.

He then drove her car and followed a black car driven by Bunch. The cars stopped in a gravel lot and the driver and Bunch forced the woman out of the car and repeatedly raped her at gunpoint. A third man exited the black car and stole items from the woman’s car before stopping the attack and putting the woman back in her car, according to case summary.

The woman was able to memorize the license plate number on the black car and police used the information to track down Bunch and his two accomplices.

Bunch was 16 at the time of the attack and a jury found him guilty of multiple counts of rape and complicity to commit rape, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and related firearm specifications.

A trial sentenced him to nine years for the firearm specifications and 10 years for all other counts. It ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total of 89 years in prison.

At sentencing, the judge explained to Bunch, “I just have to make sure that you don’t get out of the penitentiary. I’ve got to do everything I can to keep you there, because it would be a mistake to have you back in society,” case summary states.

Bunch appealed, claiming the sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole and in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court rejected his claims and he filed a habeas petition in the U.S. District Court- Northern District of Ohio with the same claims.

The district court denied the petition and Bunch appealed to the 6th Circuit.

“The question before this court then is whether the state court’s adjudication of Bunch’s Eighth Amendment claim ‘resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,’” Rogers stated.

The judges found that in the Graham decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices wrote that a juvenile could not be sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide offense. However, the 6th Circuit judges determined that the Graham case involved a sentence for a single offense, which differed from Bunch’s multiple sentences for multiple convictions.

“While Bunch claims that his sentence runs afoul of Graham, that case did not clearly establish that consecutive, fixed-term sentences for juveniles who commit multiple nonhomicide offenses are unconstitutional when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole,” Rogers continued. “Thus, the district court properly denied Bunch’s petition.”

The judges found that the high court’s decision did not apply to multiple sentences being served consecutively.

“Thus, we cannot say that Bunch’s sentence was contrary to clearly established federal law.”

Fellow 6th Circuit judges Richard Allen Griffin and Bernice Donald joined Rogers to form the majority.

Attempts to contact the Ohio Public Defender’s Office and Office of the Ohio Attorney General were unsuccessful prior to press deadline.

The case is cited Bunch v. Smith, case No. 10-3426.

[Back]