- The U.S. Supreme Court may review a juvenile life without parole case.
- Morris Mullins challenges his sentence, citing Eighth Amendment rights violations.
- Utah's attorney general seeks clarity on juvenile sentencing amid divided court opinions.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether it will consider a case involving a man who claims his sentence of life in prison without parole for a 2001 Richfield killing was not constitutional because he was a juvenile.
Utah's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the man, Morris Thomas Mullins, on Nov. 20, 2025, ordering the 6th District Court to give him a new sentencing hearing. However, the Utah Attorney General's Office continued pushing back against that decision.
The state's high court denied a request to give the case a rehearing, and on March 5 the attorneys filed a petition before the country's highest court, inviting it to take on the case.
On Wednesday, after receiving arguments from both sides, the high court set the case for a conference on Sept. 28, where the justices will consider their petition and Mullins' response before deciding whether to hear the case and publish an opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court's website said the justices typically agree to hear only about 80 cases each year, a small percentage of the 7,000 to 8,000 requests it receives.
The Utah Attorney General's Office asked the Supreme Court to determine if a juvenile can be sentenced to life without parole even if the court finds that the juvenile could be capable of changing and reforming. They said lower courts have ruled differently on the issue, citing Mullins' case and two others, and said the Utah Supreme Court was divided on its decision, 3-2.
Mullins, now 43, pleaded guilty to aggravated murder for a May 2001 killing as part of a plea deal that dismissed another charge of rape. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole but later challenged his sentence, arguing it violated his Eighth Amendment right because there was no indication that the judge considered his age, citing a decision in the case Miller v. Alabama.
The man admitted that he raped and killed 78-year-old Amy Davis in her home weeks before his 18th birthday. Mullins was initially considered as a suspect because he was already a suspect in a similar sexual assault and killing of an elderly woman in Arizona. After being convicted in Utah, he pleaded guilty in Arizona to the murder of 80-year-old Lilly Kraetch in 2000.
The majority on the Utah Supreme Court cited a comment from the judge in his Utah sentencing suggesting a "hope" that Mullins may have "a chance to change." They determined the juvenile life without parole sentence was "incompatible with a suggestion that Mullins could change."
The other two justices said the Supreme Court's most recent applicable ruling found that a juvenile life without parole sentence "is not categorically unconstitutional when imposed on a juvenile who the court views as redeemable."
Attorneys for Utah argued the "divided opinion" from Utah's Supreme Court "presents an ideal vehicle to resolve the split of authority."
"The issue has been teed up perfectly — and has been percolating around the country long enough — for the court to resolve the split of authority," the petition said.
If the high court takes up the case, the petition said it will provide an answer that can be easily applied in other cases — resolving "a matter of profound national importance."
The Utah Attorney General's Office said many states permit and impose juvenile life in prison without parole, causing "confusion and inconsistency," and the Supreme Court granting its request to consider the case would provide a "much-needed opportunity to set the record straight."
Federal public defenders based in Utah who are representing Mullins filed a response asking the high court not to consider the case and to allow a new sentence.
They said Utah did not, and could not, argue that the outcome they are requesting would be consistent with other rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. They said the high court has not categorically barred courts from sentencing juveniles to life without parole, unless the juvenile's crime "reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity."
Mullins argued the Utah Supreme Court's opinion "exactly mirrors" what was found in three other cases and that his sentence is unconstitutional. Further, he said his case is not the best one for the U.S. Supreme Court to use to consider the issue because the state's high court vacated his sentencing in two different ways, but only one of those is challenged.
According to the response, a decision would have "virtually no impact" on how Utah can punish juvenile defendants.
