State high court weighs whether Mattis decision automatically altered life-without-parole sentences or requires resentencing

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Hammel v. Hiran Perez over whether this court’s March 22, 2024 revised Mattis opinion automatically altered certain life-without-parole sentences for emerging adults or whether judges must hold resentencing hearings to implement new parole eligibility rules.

Attorney Valerie DePalma, representing the defendant, told the court that the Mattis rescript established a parole-eligibility scheme that, for offenses committed before 2012, fixed parole eligibility at 15 years. "When the rescript in Mattis was issued, he had already served 15 years in prison. So as a result, he was immediately eligible for parole," DePalma said, and she argued that correcting the mittimus (the court record of the sentence) rather than holding a resentencing hearing would enable the defendant to seek a parole hearing.

The Commonwealth, represented by Rachel Eisenhower, urged the opposite approach. "This case presents the question of how a new constitutional ruling at a state Supreme Court level flows…