By Karissa Murphy, Executive Editor
Carlos Flores was 17 years old when he was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 21-years-to-life imprisonment. Flores and three others attempted to rob a bar in Queens, New York in 1981.[1] During the robbery, an off-duty police officer who was at the bar attempted to intervene and one of Flores’s accomplices shot and killed the officer.[2]
Flores is now 54 years old and has spent 37 years behind bars—16 years more than his minimum sentence.[3] He has been repeatedly denied parole, despite having an excellent institutional record—his last disciplinary offense occurred over 25 years ago for disobeying an order to keep the mess hall line moving.[4]
Lawrence Bartley was also 17 years old when he was convicted of second-degree murder for his involvement in a shootout between two feuding gangs in a movie theater.[5] The shootout left one bystander dead. Although Bartley fired only one shot, he was sentenced to 27 years to life imprisonment in December 1990.[6] Prior to this shootout, Bartley was shot four times in a drive-by shooting when he was only 16 years old.[7] He is now 45 years old and has served just over 27 years.
Like Flores, Bartley has an exceptional disciplinary record and earned a “limited time credit allowance” award, allowing him to be considered for parole six months before the expiration of his minimum term.[8] While incarcerated, Bartley has earned a Master’s degree, raised $8,000 for a gun buy-back program, and has secured employment upon release.[9] Bartley was also denied parole.
Flores and Bartley recently filed a class action lawsuit against the Chairwoman, Tina Stanford, and each individual Commissioner on the New York State Board of Parole (herein “the Parole Board”), on March 20, 2018, suing them in their official capacity. As the complaint alleges, Flores and Bartley have “been and continue to be subject to disproportionate punishment and deprived of due process of law by being denied a realistic and meaningful opportunity for release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”[10]
The complaint goes on to state that juvenile lifers, like Flores and Bartley, will continue to be denied a meaningful opportunity for release in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as provisions of the New York Constitution.[11]
As the complaint points out, the United States Supreme Court has found that life without parole for all juveniles, except for those whose crime reflects “irreparable corruption,” is unconstitutional.[12] The Supreme Court has also previously highlighted the fact that juveniles are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing [because of] diminished culpability and greater prospects of reform.”[13] This holding applies retroactively to juvenile lifers in prison today, as well as at parole hearings, where juvenile lifers face the possibility of life imprisonment if parole is denied.[14]
Flores and Bartley argue that despite this policy, which clearly considers the age of perpetrators, the Parole Board has incorrectly interpreted the New York Executive Law to allow the Board “to deny parole to juvenile lifers without regard to an individual’s subsequent demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. . . and accordingly, regularly deny parole to juvenile lifers who pose a low risk to public safety. [The Parole Board has] consistently denied such individuals parole with short conclusory opinions citing only factors present at the time of conviction, such as juvenile criminal history and the nature of the crime of conviction.”
Flores was last denied parole on October 24, 2017.[15] The Parole Board’s stated reason for denying him parole was that “his release at this time would not be compatible with the welfare of society and would tend to deprecate the seriousness of the Instant Offense and undermine respect for the law.”[16] He was denied any explanation for what additional steps he should take to be recommended for parole.[17] Bartley was denied parole on September 6, 2017. Without basis, the Parole Board concluded that Bartley’s release would be “incompatible with the welfare of society and would so deprecate the serious nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law.”[18]
Both Bartley and Flores obtained low scores on the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (“COMPAS”) test, which is a research-based, objective risk and needs assessment tool to assist in the placement, supervision, and case management of offenders. A low score on the COMPAS test indicates that an individual would need little supervision upon release and would be low risk of reoffending.[19]
The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that it is unconstitutional to impose a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, on a child offender. Flores and Bartley argue, then, that it should also be unconstitutional to impose on children a life sentence absent a parole scheme that provides a “meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated rehabilitation and reform.”
Flores and Bartley are just two of the hundreds of examples around the country of individuals who have demonstrated excellent disciplinary records and clear evidence of rehabilitation, yet are consistently denied opportunity for release based upon crimes committed centuries ago as children. As Flores and Bartley argue, Commissioners receive little, if any training, and conduct 20 to 35 interviews in a day, therefore lacking the time and resources necessary to evaluate each individual’s case properly.
Perhaps these inadequacies in the parole process generally, and as they pertain to juvenile offenders, will finally be addressed in this case.
Sources
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/19/nyregion/3-are-guilty-in-slaying-of-off-duty-policeman-in-81.html.
[2] Id.
[3] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/inmates-life-sentences-juveniles-file-suit-parole-board-article-1.3885971.
[4] https://blog.simplejustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/18cv2468_1.pdf.
[5] https://www.newsday.com/long-island/crime/inmates-class-action-lawsuit-li-1.17552863.
[6] Id.
[7] https://blog.simplejustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/18cv2468_1.pdf.
[8] Id. at 8.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 2.
[12] Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010).
[13] Id.
[14] Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 734-35 (2016).
[15] https://blog.simplejustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/18cv2468_1.pdf.
[16] Id. at 6.
[17] Id. at 7.
[18] Id. at 9.
[19] https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/docs/FS_COMPAS_Final_4-15-09.pdf.
