UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGER SCOTT HELM, Jr., No. 22-15689

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:20-cv-02173- ROS RYAN THORNELL, Director; KRISTIN MAYES, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF OPINION ARIZONA,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 7, 2023 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed August 9, 2024

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and Richard Seeborg, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Collins * The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 HELM V. THORNELL

SUMMARY **

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Roger Scott Helm, Jr.’s habeas corpus petition in which he contended that his multiple consecutive terms of imprisonment for three homicides amount to the functional equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence in violation of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. The panel concluded that, even assuming arguendo that Helm’s term of incarceration is functionally a life-without- parole sentence, his Miller claim fails. As the Supreme Court recently clarified in Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98, 106 (2021), Miller mandated only that a sentencer follow a certain process—considering an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics—before imposing a life-without- parole sentence. Because Helm’s sentence was not mandatory and the trial judge had discretion to impose a lesser punishment in light of Helm’s youth, his sentence complied with Miller.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HELM V. THORNELL 3

COUNSEL Molly A. Karlin (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender; Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender; Federal Public Defenders Office, Phoenix, Arizona; for Petitioner- Appellant. Casey D. Ball (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Section; J.D. Nielson, Habeas Unit Chief; Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General; Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona; Linley Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona House of Representatives, Phoenix, Arizona; for Respondents- Appellees.

OPINION COLLINS, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Roger Scott Helm, Jr., who murdered his adoptive parents and his stepsister in 1984 when he was 14 years old, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Helm contends that his multiple consecutive terms of imprisonment for the three homicides amount to the functional equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence in violation of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that “mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” Id. at 465. We conclude that, even assuming arguendo that Helm’s term of incarceration is functionally a life-without-parole sentence, his Miller claim fails. As the Supreme Court 4 HELM V. THORNELL

recently clarified, “Miller mandated ‘only that a sentencer follow a certain process—considering an