Windom v. Blades

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time 17 is GRANTED. Respondent's response 19 is deemed timely. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED on the merits, and this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ETHAN WINDOM,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00468-EJL
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
RANDY BLADES,
Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Idaho state prisoner Ethan Windom’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1.) Petitioner raises a single claim in his Petition—that his fixed
life sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Respondent Randy Blades,
warden of the prison in which Petitioner is confined, previously filed a motion for
summary dismissal, contending that Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim was
procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 10.)
On January 7, 2014, the Court determined that it would deem moot Respondent’s
motion for summary dismissal and that it intended to dismiss the Petition on the merits.
(Dkt. 16). The Court set forth its reasons for concluding that Petitioner was not entitled to
relief on his Eighth Amendment claim and allowed the parties to respond to the Court’s
analysis. (Id.) The parties have now done so.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 1

For the reasons that follow, the Court reaffirms its analysis that Plaintiff is not
entitled to relief on his Eighth Amendment claim, whether under the standards articulated
in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) or under de novo review. Therefore, the Petition will be dismissed
on the merits and with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner was 16 years old when he killed his mother. He pleaded guilty to
second-degree murder with no sentencing recommendation. Petitioner was sentenced to
fixed life—life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
As the Court explained in its previous Order, Petitioner’s nonmandatory fixed life
sentence, imposed after a conviction for homicide, does not violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. See Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. 48 (2010) (holding that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of a
life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide); see
also Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2475 (2012) (“Graham, Roper, and our
individualized sentencing decisions make clear that a judge or jury must have the
opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible
penalty for juveniles. By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive
lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related
characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before
us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel
and unusual punishment.” (emphasis added)). The Court adopts its previous analysis on
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 2

Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim and incorporates it herein by reference. (See Dkt.
16.)
In his response to the Court’s January 7 Order, Petitioner alleges that the
sentencing judge did not consider all of the circumstances when she imposed the fixed
life sentence, including that juveniles should not be held to the same standards as adults
with respect to sentencing. But as the Court previously recognized, the judge did, in fact,
consider all of the relevant circumstances, including Petitioner’s youth and alleged mental
illness. (State’s Lodging B-1 at 6.)
There is no doubt that a fixed life sentence for one so young is severe—indeed,
because the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a death sentence upon
individuals who committed their crimes as juveniles, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551,
575 (2005), life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was the harshest possible
sentence in this case. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment that prohibits a
sentencing judge from imposing a nonmandatory fixed life sentence on a convicted
murderer.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Petition.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED.
Respondent’s response (Dkt. 19) is deemed timely.

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is DENIED on the merits,
and this entire action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably
debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Petitioner
files a timely notice of appeal, the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of
the notice of appeal, together with this Order, to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner may seek a certificate of
appealability from the Ninth Circuit by filing a request in that court.
DATED: August 13, 2014

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 4