The state Court of Appeals has affirmed a sentence of life in prison without parole in a murder case from Lincoln County.
Appeals judges affirmed the sentence by Circuit Judge David Strong, who presided over a resentencing hearing for Jerrard Cook in March and April 2016.
Cook was 17 in 2002 when he and an accomplice, Cearic Barnes, shot 18-year-old Marvin Durr and stole his car, then burned the car and the body in an effort to destroy evidence. The pair had also planned to rob at least one store. Cook pleaded guilty to capital murder.
Public defender Erin Elizabeth Briggs, representing Cook, appealed the sentence based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which forbids mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders under the Eighth Amendment.
The Miller ruling says a sentencing judge or jury “must have the ‘discretion’ to ‘consider mitigating circumstances’ before a sentence of (life without parole) may be imposed,” the ruling said.
Another federal ruling, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, said life without parole is valid “only ‘for those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption.’”
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in Parker v. State, laid out factors to be considered and procedures to be followed in cases where the Miller ruling dictates a new sentencing hearing.
In appealing the result of the resentencing hearing, Briggs claimed that Cook should be declared eligible for parole under the Miller and Parker rulings, that he was entitled to a jury sentence and that the Eighth Amendment and the Mississippi Constitution prohibit a sentence of life without parole for any offender under the age of 18.
The appeals judges held that Strong did not abuse his discretion in sentencing Cook to life without parole, and that there is no reason for heightened scrutiny to be applied.
The judges also opined that another Mississippi Supreme Court ruling, Jones v. State, says “...a sentence of (life without parole) remains appropriate for ‘juveniles who fail to convince the sentencing authority that Miller considerations are sufficient to prohibit its (imposition).’”
Cook’s age and level of maturity did not demand a Miller consideration, the court said, and the events of the evening — having a gun ready, planning to rob a store, stealing a car and trying to destroy evidence — argued against such leniency.
Judges also said, contrary to the claims Briggs entered on Cook’s behalf, that the Miller and Montgomery rulings do not require sentencing or resentencing to be considered by a jury rather than a judge; and that a sentence of life without parole, even for a juvenile offender, can be constitutional.
The Court of Appeals judges concurred in the result unanimously.
