A murder case that dates back more than two decades returned to a New Hampshire courtroom this week for a resentencing, closing one chapter of a long legal saga. According to the account, Robert Tulloch, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime, had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and, under the rules in place then, was automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The path back to court was opened by a landmark ruling. According to the account, in 2012 the United States Supreme Court decided in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentences were an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles, and the decision was later made retroactive, which meant that people sentenced as minors could seek to be resentenced.
That retroactive effect reached Tulloch's case directly. According to the account, because he had received a mandatory life-without-parole term for a crime committed as a minor, he became eligible to have his punishment reconsidered, and today's hearing was convened to determine what his new sentence should be after years of litigation over how the rule applies.
The two sides came into the hearing far apart. According to the account, the defense argued for a sentence of 30 to 40 years, while prosecutors were prepared to ask for a life sentence, which remained constitutional as long as it was not mandatory. The judge, however, signaled that he was prepared to rule that even a discretionary life-without-parole term for a minor would be unconstitutional.
With that signal, the parties moved toward a compromise. According to the account, the prosecution and the defense entered into a last-minute agreement on a sentence of a minimum of 45 years to life, and what had been scheduled as a three-day resentencing turned into a hearing of roughly one hour once the two sides reached terms that the judge then approved.
The new sentence carries a date that stood out in the courtroom. According to the account, under the agreement Tulloch would become eligible for parole in 2046, when he will be 62 years old, described as the same age as one of his victims at the time of the crime, though eligibility does not guarantee that parole would actually be granted at that point.
The outcome unfolded against the backdrop of a co-defendant and grieving relatives. According to the account, a co-defendant identified as Parker has already been paroled and released, a factor raised in the discussion of avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities, while the daughter of a victim addressed the court and asked for a longer sentence than the one the parties had agreed upon.