Supreme Court declines Arizona case challenging juvenile life without parole

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case of an Arizona man who was sentenced to life in prison as a juvenile.

Lonnie Bassett was convicted of killing two people in Arizona in 2004 when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to “natural life,” which prevents release under any condition, and a consecutive “life” sentence, which allows for the possibility of release after 25 years.

The convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied Bassett’s requests for postconviction relief.

Arizona abolished parole for people with felony convictions from 1994 to 2014. This meant the only release available was through executive clemency. Basset was sentenced in 2006.

In a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Bassett's attorneys argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

“Petitioner Lonnie Allen Bassett was sentenced to life without parole under a system that did not afford the sentencing court discretion to choose any other option,” they wrote. “That makes Arizona’s sentencing scheme ‘mandatory’ — and thus unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.”

The Constitution prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, they argued.

Responding to Bassett’s petition, attorneys for the state argued that the sentencing judges who made decisions when parole was not available were not aware the law had changed. Therefore, they were making decisions believing that parole was still available.

“Bassett’s sentencer made an individualized choice between two non-capital sentencing options,” the Arizona Attorney General’s Office wrote. “Due to a widespread mistaken belief that one option included parole-eligibility, his sentencer expressly considered whether parole-eligible sentences were appropriate.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Basset's petition for certiorari.

Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented from the denial.

“This Court’s precedents require a ‘discretionary sentencing procedure — where the sentencer can consider the defendant’s youth and has discretion to impose a lesser sentence than life without parole,’” Sotomayor wrote, quoting previous case law. “Because Arizona’s sentencing scheme instead mandated life without parole for juveniles, I would grant the petition for certiorari.”

Sotomayor said discretionary sentencing ensures that life without parole sentences are only imposed where that sentence is appropriate.

“This constitutionally required sentencing scheme reflects the premise that, in deciding whether to impose life-without-parole for a juvenile, consideration of youth and a child’s capacity for change matter,” Sotomayor wrote.

Bassett's attorneys said the decision would impact dozens of similarly situated people in Arizona who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter,@JimmyJenkins.