A man who has spent 50 years incarcerated for murdering his neighbor at age 17 was denied parole for the 18th time. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reluctantly affirmed the denial, suggesting lawmakers review the rules to make parole more attainable for convicted juveniles.
While high and drunk, Stewart Buchanan fatally stabbed his neighbor in 1973. Later that year, he pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, which meant he would be eligible for parole after 10 years. His attorney told him that it would be unlikely for him not to get parole after 20 years.
For his 18th parole request, he argued the board should consider factors that Aiken v. Byars established must be examined when considering a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile, including age and immaturity, family and home environment, circumstances of the crime, incompetence as a juvenile in dealing with the justice system, and the possibility for rehabilitation.
Buchanan argued in his favor on all points but particularly asserted that he has become a much better person. He has visited schools and churches to dissuade teenagers from using drugs. He has been a certified literacy tutor for more than 40 years, teaches English and started a course to teach inmates basic legal research and writing. He has volunteered as an inmate grievance clerk and a hospice volunteer and is a member of an inmate society focused on rehabilitation, which requires a good disciplinary history.
When on work release, he is involved with a ministry program and has completed more than 500 hours of carpentry training. In 2018, he graduated with the release plan Jump Start at the highest possible level. As a graduate, he would be provided transitional housing for two years, be mentored and receive assistance getting a job and buying a home.
A forensic psychologist examining Buchanan noted he had some disciplinary charges but concluded he did not represent a significant risk for future violent acts and that he took full responsibility for the murder and demonstrated remorse. Through interviews with employers, prison employees, a chaplain and others, she heard that Buchanan was a model inmate, “a really good, really respectful guy,” and that, “If he got out tomorrow, I would be happy to know he bought a home on my street.”
According to Buchanan, the parole board deliberated for less than a minute before denying his request.
The board said in a letter that it applied the mandatory criteria, including the characteristics of the offense. It also said that, though its reasons for denial “will never change, these reasons for denial are legal.”
Buchanan appealed to the Administrative Law Court, which rejected his argument that recent case law created a new substantive constitutional right to a meaningful parole review, including consideration of age at the time of the crime, for inmates sentenced as juveniles.
Buchanan then appealed to the Court of Appeals. He noted that 15 of his denials cite the same three reasons, all boiling down to him having committed a serious, violent crime. Meanwhile, the board did not consider his youth and rehabilitation.
The parole board argued the law only requires factors of youth to be considered in sentencing, not in parole hearings. Because Buchanan is still eligible for parole, even if he has not yet received it, no Eighth Amendment violation has occurred, the board members argued.
The Court of Appeals agreed.
Despite affirming, the Appeals Court expressed concern about the board’s decision, as it appears no passage of time or proof of personal improvement can change the board’s mind.
“Although Buchanan and other juveniles similarly situated are technically eligible for parole, the continuing denial of parole based on the same factors, all unchangeable and related to their offenses, gives no guidance to these inmates about what can be done to improve their chances of parole and is, in essence, equivalent to being ineligible for parole,” wrote Judge Paula H. Thomas in the opinion, with which Judges Stephanie P. McDonald and Blake A. Hewitt concurred.
Thomas continued that the board is thwarting the public policy to restore hope to juvenile offenders for some life outside of prison and is disincentivizing good conduct and participation in rehabilitative programs that reduce recidivism.
Buchanan has since petitioned for rehearing, claiming that the Court of Appeals erred when affirming the board’s decision while simultaneously calling the denial “equivalent to being ineligible for parole,” which Buchanan said makes his current sentence cruel and unusual punishment.
In its response, the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services said Buchanan raised no new arguments, and that the court should deny the petition or reissue the same opinion with the removal of the language calling the continual denial equivalent to being ineligible for parole.
Attorneys for Buchanan are Lindsey Vann, Rosalind Major and Allison Franz of 360, who did not wish to comment, and John Blume of Cornell Law School, who did not respond to a request for comment. Matthew Buchanan, general counsel for the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, did not wish to comment.
The case is Buchanan v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, 2019-001554.
The post Decades after juvenile guilty plea, ‘model inmate’ once again denied parole first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.