McKinley Kelly v. State of Indiana

IN THE

Indiana Supreme Court

FILED

Supreme Court Case No. 25S-PC-108 Apr 30 2025, 11:00 am

CLERK

McKinley Kelly, Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

and Tax Court

Appellant/Petitioner,

–v–

State of Indiana,

Appellee/Respondent.

Argued: November 6, 2024 | Decided: April 30, 2025

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court No. 3

No. 45G03-2002-PC-7

The Honorable Mark Watson, Magistrate

and the Honorable Gina Jones, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

No. 23A-PC-1025

Opinion by Justice Molter

Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur.

Molter, Justice.

McKinley Kelly was still emerging from a childhood enmeshed in

violence when a jury found that he brutally murdered three young adults.

He was sixteen years old when he committed the murders and seventeen

when he was sentenced. The judge, after vacating one of those

convictions, sentenced him to 110 years in prison—fifty-five-year

consecutive sentences for each offense. Kelly unsuccessfully appealed his

convictions and sentence, pursued state court post-conviction relief, and

sought habeas relief in federal court.

But the landscape of juvenile sentencing—even for the most heinous

crimes like these—has since changed. So the Court of Appeals authorized

Kelly to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief challenging his

sentence. His claims focus on a deepening scientific understanding of

adolescent brain function, which better explains why juveniles are less

culpable and more capable of change. Those developments, he contends,

should lead either to a resentencing—reconsidering his sentence in light of

this better understanding—or to a more lenient sentence offering more

hope for a meaningful period of life outside prison walls.

After permitting Kelly to amend his claims, the post-conviction court

denied his petition, and when he appealed, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Today, we grant transfer to address important procedural issues for post-

conviction relief and important substantive issues for juvenile sentencing.

Like the Court of Appeals, we affirm the post-conviction court, and we

reach three key conclusions along the way.

First, while the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies (“Post-

Conviction Rules”) require appellate screening before filing a successive

petition for post-conviction relief, those rules do not require appellate

screening before amending a successive petition. So the post-conviction

court’s decision to permit Kelly to amend his claims was appropriate.

Second, the state and federal constitutional provisions Kelly cites with

various sentencing restrictions and requirements for equal treatment do

not compel a more lenient sentence here. And third, Kelly’s sentence is not

inappropriate based on the nature of his offenses and his character.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 2 of 29

We hasten to note, though, that in this procedural posture we are only

reviewing Kelly’s claims that our state and federal constitutions, along

with our court rules, compelled more leniency when he was sentenced.

That is different than reviewing a request for a statutorily authorized

sentence modification, which involves considering an offender’s personal,

rehabilitative progress after sentencing. A key premise of Kelly’s

arguments is that “a court cannot reliably determine at the time of

sentencing whether a child is irredeemable.” Appellant’s Br. at 42. That is

true, but that mystery is just as much a reason not to shorten a sentence—

after all, time may prove the child is irreparably corrupted.

Helpfully, the legislature addressed this dilemma recently by amending

its sentence modification statute to offer juvenile offenders like Kelly a

right to have their sentences reexamined after twenty years. Ind. Code

§ 35-38-1-17(n). At that point, the reviewing court will have the benefit of

evidence related to Kelly’s rehabilitative successes or failures. And all the

constitutional provisions that guide sentencing and direct distinct

treatment of juvenile offenders will continue to inform the reviewing

courts’ analysis and discretion.

Facts and Procedural History

Violence enveloped McKinley Kelly’s childhood. His father sometimes

beat him, once by whipping him repeatedly with an extension cord and

another time by beating him with a stick and kicking him in the head.

Bullets came through the windows of his family home. When Kelly was

fifteen, he was shot in the shoulder. And he witnessed the death of his

best friend, who died in his arms after being shot. After enduring one

tragedy after another, Kelly did not expect he would reach adulthood.

Under these circumstances, it is unfortunate but unsurprising that Kelly

ended up joining a gang.

While tragic, Kelly’s circumstances do not excuse or justify what he did

on the evening of January 8, 1996. Sixteen-year-old Kelly and three of his

friends were driving around East Chicago and came upon Maurice

Hobson, Karl Jackson, and Vincent Ray, who were standing in a driveway.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 3 of 29

Armed with a revolver, Kelly got out of the car and confronted Jackson.

Kelly initiated the confrontation, argued with Jackson, and then pulled

out his gun and shot Jackson. After Jackson fell, Kelly stood over him and

fired more shots into him.

Hobson asked Kelly why he had shot Jackson. In response, Kelly shot

Hobson in the head and chest. One of Kelly’s companions, Leo Dent, also

shot Hobson with a shotgun. Kelly then left the scene, but Dent stayed

behind to kill Ray.

Kelly was charged with murdering Jackson, Ray, and Hobson, and a

jury found him guilty on all three counts. The trial court vacated Kelly’s

conviction for Ray’s murder. The court then sentenced Kelly—who was

seventeen at that point—to the presumptive term of fifty-five years for

each murder, to run consecutively for an aggregate term of 110 years. The

court imposed this sentence only after considering Kelly’s young age as a

mitigating factor.

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed, rejecting Kelly’s arguments that

there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his

sentence was manifestly unreasonable given his age and his brother’s

influence over his actions. Kelly v. State, 719 N.E.2d 391, 394, 395 (Ind.

1999). Kelly petitioned for post-conviction relief in 2001. The post-

conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. He then

petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which a federal district court

denied.

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, in

which it held that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles

violate the Eighth Amendment. 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012). Before a juvenile

convicted of a homicide offense can be sentenced to life without parole

(“LWOP”), a court must consider the defendant’s age, since it is only “the

rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id. at

479–80. While Kelly did not receive an LWOP sentence, he nonetheless

applied to file a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the theory

that he was serving a de facto life sentence in violation of Miller.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 4 of 29

The Seventh Circuit accepted that Kelly was serving a de facto life

sentence but dismissed his application, holding that the sentencing court

considered Kelly’s age before sentencing him, as Miller required. Kelly v.

Brown, 851 F.3d 686, 687–88 (7th Cir. 2017). Judge Posner dissented,

concluding that the trial court’s consideration of Kelly’s youth did not

amount to finding Kelly was irreparably corrupt. Id. at 688–89 (Posner, J.,

dissenting). Judge Posner therefore would have allowed Kelly to pursue

his habeas claim. Id.

In 2019, Kelly filed a pro se successive petition for post-conviction relief

asserting that his sentence violated various provisions in the United States

and Indiana Constitutions generally related to sentencing juvenile

offenders. The Court of Appeals authorized his successive petition under

Post-Conviction Rule 1(12)(b), and the State Public Defender accepted his

case. She then amended his petition to add additional constitutional

claims and to claim that new evidence related to adolescent brain

development entitled him to resentencing.

At the evidentiary hearing on Kelly’s petition, the State objected to

some of the new grounds raised in the amended petition. But the post-

conviction court allowed the new claims to proceed. In addition to legal

arguments, Kelly presented evidence on research into juvenile brain

development, which he argued demonstrates diminished culpability for

juvenile offenders and greater capacity for reform. After hearing the

evidence, the post-conviction court denied relief.

Kelly appealed, asking the Court of Appeals to reverse the post-

conviction court’s decision and to reconsider his sentence under Appellate

Rule 7(B). The Court of Appeals unanimously held that the claims raised

by amendment were waived, affirmed the denial of relief under the

United States and Indiana Constitutions, and held that evidence about

juvenile brain development was not newly discovered evidence under the

Post-Conviction Rules. Kelly v. State, 236 N.E.3d 716, 724, 726, 728, 731–33

(Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Finally, the court concluded that claim preclusion

barred it (but not this Court) from reconsidering Kelly’s sentence under

Appellate Rule 7(B). Id. at 735.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 5 of 29

Kelly then petitioned for transfer to this Court, which we now grant,

thus vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

Standard of Review

Kelly appeals from a negative judgment, so he must show that “the

evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision

opposite that reached by the postconviction court.” Conley v. State, 183

N.E.3d 276, 282 (Ind. 2022) (quoting Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591, 597

(Ind. 2001)). We do not reweigh the evidence presented at the post-

conviction proceedings, and we examine only the evidence and reasonable

inferences that support the post-conviction court’s determination. Id. But

we review pure legal questions de novo. State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185,

1190 (Ind. 2020). This includes the interpretation of the Post-Conviction

Rules. See Howard v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1389, 1390 (Ind. 1995).

Discussion and Decision

The parties disagree over both the scope and merits of Kelly’s claims.

Below, we first explain that it was proper for the post-conviction court to

consider Kelly’s amendments to the claims in his successive petition for

post-conviction relief. After that, we explain that none of Kelly’s claims

merit relief—the post-conviction court did not err in denying all the

claims in his amended petition, and we decline to revise his sentence

through our Appellate Rule 7(B) discretion.

I. Kelly’s Amendments to His Successive Petition

The State makes a threshold argument that while Kelly properly

obtained appellate court permission to file his successive petition for post-

conviction relief, he waived his amended claims because he failed to

submit those amendments for appellate screening. Kelly responds that the

State misreads the Post-Conviction Rules, which only require appellate

screening for filing successive petitions, not amending them. We agree with

Kelly.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 6 of 29

A. Kelly’s amended claims were an “outgrowth” of

his claims in his proposed successive petition.

Kelly’s proposed successive petition alleged that his “sentence of 110

years is materially indistinguishable from a life sentence without parole,”

and because he was a juvenile when he committed his offenses, that

sentence violates: the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment

(right to a speedy and public trial with the assistance of counsel) and

Eighth Amendment (ban on cruel and unusual punishments); Article 1,

Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution (ban on cruel and unusual

punishments and requirement that penalties be proportioned to the

offense); and the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Miller v.

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding that mandatory life imprisonment

without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and

unusual punishments for those who committed their offenses before they

were eighteen), Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 206 (2016) (holding

that Miller announced a new substantive constitutional rule that was

retroactive on state collateral review), and Tatum v. Arizona, 580 U.S. 952

(2016) (remanding for reconsideration of juveniles’ life without parole

sentences in light of Montgomery). App. Vol. 2 at 51–52. He also claimed

the appellate courts should exercise their discretion to revise his sentence

under Appellate Rule 7(B) because his sentence is inappropriate based on

the nature of his offenses and his character.

After the Court of Appeals permitted Kelly to file his successive

petition based on its conclusion that he had a reasonable possibility of

success, the State Public Defender entered her appearance and amended

his petition to add a few more claims: advancements in developmental

psychology and neuroscience reflecting that children are less culpable and

more capable of change than adults is newly discovered sentencing

evidence entitling Kelly to a new sentencing hearing; Kelly’s sentence was

unconstitutional under the Indiana Constitution’s Article 1, Section 15

(protecting those the State detains from unnecessary rigor), Section 18

(requiring a penal code based on reformation rather than vindictive

justice), and Section 23 (guaranteeing equal privileges and immunities to

all); and Kelly’s sentence violated the Equal Protection Clause of the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 7 of 29

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She also

dropped Kelly’s Sixth Amendment claim.

The post-conviction court permitted those amendments because they

were “very similar to” and an “an outgrowth” of the claims in Kelly’s pro

se petition that the Court of Appeals authorized. “[E]ach and every claim”

in the amended petition, as the court saw it, “is still tying in with the

overall theme raised by Mr. Kelly when he filed [his] pro se petition back

before the state public defender was involved.” Tr. at 9. By contrast, the

court explained it may not have permitted the amendment if the State

Public Defender asserted “stand-alone claims that were completely

unrelated” to the claims in the petition that the Court of Appeals

authorized. Id.

The State does not dispute that the amendment was substantively

proper. That is, the State does not dispute that the amendment “merely

repackages and expands upon the authorized claims,” that “the evidence

presented on [Kelly’s] successive petition was not materially altered by

the presentation of the additional claims,” or that the Post-Conviction

Rules permit those sorts of amendments to successive petitions. Pet. to

Trans. at 8. Instead, the State argues the amendment was procedurally

improper because it was the post-conviction court rather than the Court of

Appeals that authorized the amendment.

We agree with Kelly that the Post-Conviction Rules empower post-

conviction courts to permit amendments to successive petitions.

B. Post-conviction courts are empowered to permit

amendments to successive petitions.

The primary route for seeking review of claimed errors leading to a

criminal conviction or sentence is a direct appeal from a final judgment.

Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899, 905 (Ind. 2009). From there, the path

narrows. If a direct appeal is inadequate, the convicted defendant may

collaterally attack the judgment through post-conviction proceedings,

which are civil proceedings governed by the Indiana Rules of Post-

Conviction Remedies. Gibson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 673, 681 (Ind. 2019). But

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 8 of 29

“[p]ost-conviction proceedings are not a ‘super-appeal’; rather, the

grounds enumerated in the Post-Conviction Rules are limited to issues

that were not known at the time of the original trial or that were not

available on direct appeal.” Corcoran v. State, 246 N.E.3d 782, 795 (Ind.

2024).

After the first petition for post-conviction relief, a party may file an

additional petition—a “successive” petition—only if they first get

permission from our appellate courts, which will authorize the filing only

if the petitioner makes a threshold showing that there is a “‘reasonable

possibility’” that they are entitled to relief. Shaw v. State, 130 N.E.3d 91, 92

(Ind. 2019) (quoting Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(12)). Once an appellate

court authorizes the petitioner to file a successive petition, the petitioner

files the petition in the same court where the petitioner’s first petition for

post-conviction relief was resolved. P-C.R. 1(12)(c).

Kelly followed that procedure for a successive petition here. He

submitted a proposed petition to the Court of Appeals; that court allowed

him to file the petition after concluding he demonstrated a reasonable

possibility he is entitled to relief; and then he filed the petition in the same

court that adjudicated his first petition. The State does not challenge

Kelly’s compliance with that procedure for filing a successive petition.

But the State does challenge Kelly’s amendment of his petition, arguing

that the post-conviction court erred by allowing Kelly to amend his

petition without first requiring Kelly to go back to the Court of Appeals to

get permission to add the new claims. The State doesn’t argue the rules

forbid Kelly’s amendment, only that the wrong court granted him

permission. And Court of Appeals panels have split over the question of

whether post-conviction courts may permit amendments to successive

petitions, or whether the petitioner must instead first obtain leave from

the Court of Appeals to amend the claims. Compare Beech v. State, 702

N.E.2d 1132, 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the post-conviction

court lacks jurisdiction over an amended petition when the petitioner does

not first obtain leave from the Court of Appeals for the amendment), and

Burkett v. State, 195 N.E.3d 394, 397 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (holding that post-

conviction courts cannot consider claims added by amendment if the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 9 of 29

petitioner did not first obtain leave to amend from the Court of Appeals),

with Washington v. State, No. 71A03-0603-PC-103, 2007 WL 4170755 at *5

(Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2007) (mem.) (rejecting the State’s argument that

the post-conviction court erred in considering the amended petition where

the petitioner did not obtain leave from the Court of Appeals to amend

the petition).

The State argues that “the post-conviction rules’ plain language”

assigns the Court of Appeals the task of deciding whether a petitioner can

amend a successive petition. Resp. to Trans. at 7. But the State doesn’t

point to any language saying that. The closest it comes is citing the

language requiring the Court of Appeals to “authorize the filing of the

petition if the petitioner establishes a reasonable possibility that the

petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief.” P-C.R. 1(12)(b) (emphasis

added). But relying on that language is circular. The State is just assuming

that the responsibility to screen the filing of successive petitions also

includes the responsibility to screen all subsequent amendments, which is

just rephrasing the question presented as its own answer.

The plain language in the rules instead suggests Kelly is correct that it

is for the post-conviction court, not the Court of Appeals, to decide in the

first instance whether a petitioner’s amendment is proper. The rules for

amending petitions don’t distinguish between initial and successive

petitions, and they say the post-conviction court “may make appropriate

orders for amendment of the petition.” P-C.R. 1(4)(a); see also P-C.R. 1(4)(c)

(authorizing the amendment of petitions). And when, as here, the State

Public Defender appears after the petition was filed, she must “confer

with petitioner and ascertain all grounds for relief . . . , amending the

petition if necessary to include any grounds not included by petitioner in

the original petition.” P-C.R. 1(9)(c). Again, there is no distinction noted

for initial and successive petitions. Because Kelly points to language in the

rules empowering post-conviction courts to permit proper amendments,

and the State does not point to any language requiring permission from

the Court of Appeals to amend (as opposed to file) successive petitions,

we conclude Kelly offers the better reading of the rules.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 10 of 29

The State worries our interpretation of the Post-Conviction Rules will

“generate interlocutory appeals of rulings authorizing or denying new

claims.” Resp. to Trans. at 7. That is true enough, but that further

illustrates that Kelly’s interpretation enhances rather than undermines

judicial efficiency. Interlocutory review would be discretionary, only

permitted if both the post-conviction court and the Court of Appeals

conclude that would be the most efficient way to proceed. Ind. Appellate

Rule 14(B).

In contrast, under the State’s proposed approach, appellate screening

for all amendments would be required even when, as here, that would be

the least efficient approach. Since the State does not dispute Kelly’s

amendments were proper, time would have been lost, and nothing

gained, by returning to the Court of Appeals for appellate screening.

Having the post-conviction court screen amendments will often be

more efficient than appellate screening because a post-conviction court

will often be more familiar with the matter. The successive petition will

already be before the court, and it will be the same court that handled the

first petition and the underlying criminal case. P-C.R. 1(2), 1(12)(c). If

instead the successive petition must return to the Court of Appeals to

screen amendments, the rotating appellate motions panel screening the

amendments will likely be a different panel than the panel that screened

the successive petition.

The State’s proposed approach is also out of sync with the Court of

Appeals’ current screening practices, at least as reflected in this case. Here,

the motions panel did not screen Kelly’s proposed successive petition

claim-by-claim. Instead, the panel issued a short, boilerplate order with a

single sentence of analysis for the petition as a whole, stating: “Petitioner

has established a reasonable possibility that he is entitled to post-

conviction relief, and accordingly, the Court authorizes the filing of the

petition.” Order, Kelly v. State, No. 19A-SP-3095 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 31,

2020). Reflecting this wholesale rather than surgical claim-by-claim

treatment, the court authorized the petition in its entirety even though the

Sixth Amendment claim was so weak that Kelly immediately dropped it

once he had the assistance of counsel.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 11 of 29

We don’t criticize that Court of Appeals’ practice of authorizing

petitions in their entirety, nor do we suggest the Court of Appeals can’t

undertake claim-by-claim screening before authorizing a successive

petition. But we do not see any good reason to require that amendments

receive claim-specific appellate preapproval when there is no such claim-

specific requirement or practice for the underlying successive petition.

Because the Post-Conviction Rules do not say the Court of Appeals

screens amendments to the successive petitions it has authorized, we

conclude the post-conviction court was correct that the rules vested it

rather than the Court of Appeals with responsibility for overseeing

amendments. And because the State’s only complaint is about who

authorized the amendment and not whether the amendment was proper,

we review the merits of all Kelly’s amended claims.

II. Kelly’s Claims

All of Kelly’s legal arguments rest on a foundational understanding

that children are less culpable and more capable of change than adults, so

we generally should not sentence children to a life of incarceration even

when they commit the most heinous crimes. Those arguments all

emphasize two facts.

First, Kelly contends that, practically speaking, he has been sentenced

to life in prison. He was sentenced to incarceration for 110 years, meaning

the earliest he can be released (assuming a reduction in time for good

behavior) is when he will be sixty-nine years old, which he argues is

beyond his life expectancy.

Second, advancements in developmental psychology and neuroscience

after Kelly was sentenced better explain why children are less culpable

and more capable of change than adults. In short, Kelly describes the

scientific understanding—gleaned in part from brain imaging scans—that

the portions of children’s brains responsible for impulse control,

emotional regulation, and executive function (the prefrontal cortex) lag in

development behind the portions responsible for processing emotional

responses to incentives and rewards (the limbic system). This leads to

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 12 of 29

“sensation-seeking and risky behavior” because children’s brains “focus

more heavily on the benefits of risky behavior than on the potential

negative consequences.” Appellant’s Br. at 24–25. And that is exacerbated

by the sort of childhood trauma that Kelly experienced. On the other

hand, children have greater capacity for rehabilitation “because an

adolescent brain can mature and change more than an adult brain.” Id. at

25.

This sharpening scientific understanding has contributed to a few key

developments in how we apply our state and federal constitutions to

juvenile sentencing since Kelly was sentenced: now juvenile offenders

cannot be sentenced to death (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)); they

cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than homicide

(Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)); life sentences cannot be mandatory

for juveniles (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)); and life without

parole sentences must be reserved for only the rare juveniles who are

irreparably corrupt (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016)).

With all this in mind, Kelly argues we should reach one of three

conclusions. First, we should conclude Kelly needs to be resentenced so

the sentencing judge will have the benefit of these latest scientific and

legal developments. If we don’t order a resentencing, then Kelly urges us

to conclude that various state and federal constitutional provisions

compel us to reduce his sentence to a length that still “provides him with

hope for a meaningful life outside prison walls.” Appellant’s Br. at 70.

And if we conclude there is no constitutional command to do that, then

we should reduce his sentence through our Appellate Rule 7(B) discretion

to revise sentences we find inappropriate based on the nature of the

offense and the character of the offender.

The State argues Kelly is not entitled to any relief. It doesn’t dispute the

scientific understanding that Kelly describes, but it argues that

understanding isn’t new, and the sentencing judge already factored

Kelly’s youth into the sentence. The State also argues Kelly’s sentence

doesn’t violate the state or federal constitutions, and neither the nature of

the offenses nor Kelly’s character warrant revising his sentence.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 13 of 29

We mostly agree with the State, and we conclude Kelly is not entitled to

any relief through his successive petition.

A. Newly Discovered Evidence

One basis for relief under our Post-Conviction Rules is that “there exists

evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that

requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”

Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(4). Finality of judgments is critical to our

judicial system though, so claims of new evidence are “carefully

scrutinized” and accepted only with “great caution.” Taylor v. State, 840

N.E.2d 324, 330 (Ind. 2006). Thus, new evidence warranting relief under

this provision must satisfy each of nine elements:

(1) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial [or

sentencing]; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not

cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not

privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to

discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of

credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case [or

resentencing]; and (9) that it will probably produce a different

result.

State v. Brunner, 947 N.E.2d 411, 414 (Ind. 2011).

At his post-conviction hearing, Kelly introduced the testimony of

Dr. Daniel Keating—a University of Michigan professor of psychology,

psychiatry, and pediatrics—to establish that “[s]ince McKinley’s 1996

sentencing, advancements in neuroscientific and psychological research

have uncovered widely accepted evidence that juvenile and adult brains

are fundamentally different,” establishing that “children are less culpable

and more capable of change.” Appellant’s Br. at 23. Kelly also introduced

the testimony of Dr. Jack Bloom, a professor of sociology, history, and

minority studies at Indiana University Northwest, who testified about

Kelly’s difficult upbringing, the impact that had on his outlook, and some

of Kelly’s changes as he has grown.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 14 of 29

But the sentencing court already relied on Kelly’s youth as a mitigating

factor when imposing the presumptive sentence of fifty-five years for each

count rather than the maximum sixty-five-year sentence even though that

court found several aggravating circumstances. So the post-conviction

court concluded Kelly failed to satisfy his burden to show (a) this evidence

wasn’t cumulative of the youth-related evidence the sentencing court

already considered, and (b) this evidence would have probably produced

a different sentence.

Kelly argues the post-conviction court was mistaken because this new

evidence would have “contextualized the importance of youth and its

impact on McKinley’s culpability and changeability,” and the evidence

probably would have dissuaded the sentencing court from its views that

“youth violence was a worsening problem and that McKinley’s actions

demonstrated a lack of respect for human life that made him more likely

to reoffend.” Appellant’s Br. at 34, 35. But as the State points out, while

much of the research Kelly points to is new, the material conclusions the

research supports are not. Evidencing that, fourteen years before Kelly’s

sentencing the United States Supreme Court, echoing Kelly’s argument

here, explained:

Adolescents everywhere, from every walk of life, are often

dangerous to themselves and to others. Adolescents,

particularly in the early and middle teen years, are more

vulnerable, more impulsive, and less self-disciplined than

adults. Crimes committed by youths may be just as harmful to

victims as those committed by older persons, but they deserve

less punishment because adolescents may have less capacity to

control their conduct and to think in long-range terms than

adults. Moreover, youth crime as such is not exclusively the

offender’s fault; offenses by the young also represent a failure

of family, school, and the social system, which share

responsibility for the development of America’s youth.

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115 n.11 (1982) (brackets, quotations,

and citations omitted).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 15 of 29

While it is possible Kelly’s new evidence could make a difference

through resentencing, that is not enough for post-conviction relief. Kelly

had to show it is probable the new evidence would produce a different

outcome. We cannot say the post-conviction court, after exercising the

scrutiny and caution we require, clearly erred in concluding Kelly’s

evidence was cumulative and probably inconsequential given the

sentencing court’s consideration of Kelly’s age when imposing an

advisory sentence. Taylor, 840 N.E.2d at 329–30; see also Conley v. State, 183

N.E.3d 276, 284 (Ind. 2022) (“Because the trial court did thoughtfully

consider Conley’s age, did find it to be mitigating, and explained in great

detail why it gave this factor only some weight, we do not find a

reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had

counsel presented additional evidence about juvenile brain

development.”). And we decline Kelly’s invitation to reweigh this

evidence, which our appellate standard of review does not permit. Conley,

183 N.E.3d at 282.

Since we decline to order that Kelly be resentenced, he asks that we

recognize a constitutional command to reduce his sentence ourselves,

which we consider next.

B. Constitutional Claims

Kelly argues that both the state and federal constitutions compel a

sentence reduction based on his youth when he committed his offenses.

“Because we only need to reach the federal constitutional analysis if the

Indiana Constitution does not resolve the claim, we begin with” Kelly’s

state constitutional law claims. State v. Katz, 179 N.E.3d 431, 442 (Ind.

2022). After concluding that there is no relief under the state constitution,

we turn to the federal constitution, which we conclude offers no relief

either.

1. Indiana Constitution

Kelly argues that the Indiana Constitution’s prohibitions on

punishments that are either cruel and unusual, disproportionate to the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 16 of 29

offense, vindictive rather than reformative, or unnecessarily rigorous

compel a sentence reduction. If not, then he argues the constitutional

requirement to treat similarly situated people similarly renders his

sentence invalid because he did not receive the same procedural

protections as those who are sentenced to life without parole even though,

he argues, his lengthy term-of-years sentence has the same practical

consequence for him. Each of these arguments falls short.

a. Article 1, Section 16

Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution imposes two sentencing

limitations relevant here.

First, it prohibits “[c]ruel and unusual punishments,” Ind. Const. art. 1,

§ 16, which are sentences that “make[] no measurable contribution to

acceptable goals of punishment, but rather constitute[] only purposeless

and needless imposition of pain and suffering.” Dunlop v. State, 724

N.E.2d 592, 597 (Ind. 2000) (quotations omitted). Examples include horrific

punishments “inflicted at the whipping post, in the pillory, burning at the

stake, breaking on the wheel, etc.” Hobbs v. State, 32 N.E. 1019, 1021 (Ind.

1893).

Kelly argues his sentence is a de facto life without parole sentence,

which is cruel and unusual for a juvenile given their diminished

culpability and greater ability to change unless there is a finding that they

are beyond rehabilitation. But that argument fails because the cruel-and-

unusual clause “is aimed at the kind and form of the punishment, rather

than the duration or amount,” and therefore a “sentence of life

imprisonment without parole does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment.” Dunlop, 724 N.E.2d at 597; see also Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d

864, 880 (Ind. 2012) (holding that a life-without-parole sentence was not

cruel and unusual even though Conley was “only the fourth juvenile

sentenced to a life-without-parole sentence”).

Even if a life without parole sentence could constitute cruel and

unusual punishment, that isn’t Kelly’s sentence; he was sentenced to a

term of years. He argues this is a distinction without a difference because

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 17 of 29

the earliest he could be released would be just shy of his seventieth

birthday, which is beyond his life expectancy. But we rejected that exact

argument just a few years ago in Wilson v. State because deciding which

sentences are de facto life without parole sentences would require

imprecise line-drawing, and basing a distinction on life expectancy

implicates other constitutional concerns because life expectancy can differ

based on immutable characteristics. 157 N.E.3d 1163, 1175–76, n.8 (Ind.

2020).

Second, Section 16 requires “[a]ll penalties shall be proportioned to the

nature of the offense.” Ind. Const. art. 1, § 16. Kelly does not argue that the

length of his sentence is generally disproportionate for two murder

offenses. But even if a statutory sentence is generally valid, it may be

unconstitutional as applied to a particular defendant if the sentence is

“entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offenses actually

committed as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of a

reasonable people.” Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759, 765 (Ind. 1990)

(quotation omitted). For example, in Clark, we held that a decades-long

sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated was not proportionate

to the nature of the offense when there were no injuries or property

damage. Id. at 766. We reached a similar result in Best v. State, 566 N.E.2d

1027, 1032 (Ind. 1991), also stressing the circumstances of the offense.

Kelly argues his lengthy sentence is disproportionate because juveniles

have diminished culpability and greater ability for reform than adult

offenders, so a juvenile sentence should be less than an adult’s sentence

for the same offense. Yet a lifetime in prison is a harsher sentence for a

juvenile than an adult because the remainder of a juvenile’s life is longer.

In the abstract, there is plenty of Kelly’s argument with which we

agree. Our juvenile and criminal codes recognize that offenses committed

by juveniles are different in nature than those committed by adults. That

is why a juvenile who commits a misdemeanor or felony generally

commits a “delinquent act” and is a “delinquent child” rather than a

criminal. I.C. §§ 31-37-1-1, -1-2. Even though a delinquent child’s conduct

is the same as a criminal’s conduct, the nature of the child’s offense is

different, so they (generally) benefit from a parallel and more lenient

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 18 of 29

justice system with differing tools for reform. See In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d

631, 637 (Ind. 2004).

To be sure, we treat murder as a crime rather than a delinquent act

when committed by someone at least sixteen years old. I.C. §§ 31-37-1-2,

31-30-1-4(b). But the considerations that typically lead us to treat the

behavior of children differently—“their distinctive (and transitory) mental

traits and environmental vulnerabilities”—are not “crime-specific.” Miller,

567 U.S. at 473. And even for juveniles at least sixteen years old who

commit murder, we have explained that “at initial sentencing and on

appellate review it is necessary to consider an offender’s youth and its

attendant characteristics.” Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 6–7 (Ind. 2014); see

also Conley, 183 N.E.3d at 284 (recognizing that even for juveniles at least

sixteen years old who commit murder, we have recognized they generally

“have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform”). Thus,

when “examining whether a given punishment is proportionate to the

crime,” “[t]here is no reason why an offender’s juvenile status should be

excluded from the analysis.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 90 (Roberts, C.J.,

concurring in the judgment).

One of Kelly’s other points undercuts his argument though. He

correctly observes that the transient nature of youth means “it is not

possible to accurately determine when sentencing a child whether he is

capable of rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Br. at 46. But that uncertainty is no

more of a reason to conclude a child is capable of rehabilitation than it is

to conclude they are not. After all, we have recognized that “even

considering the notable differences between juveniles and adults,”

sometimes “the juvenile’s crimes are so reprehensible and heinous that an

LWOP sentence would be appropriate.” Conley, 183 N.E.3d at 284. Thus,

Kelly acknowledges that all the State needs to provide is a “meaningful

opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and

rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Br. at 47.

Our legislature has provided just that. It has designed a sentencing

regime where (1) a sentencing judge initially takes a juvenile’s youth into

account when fashioning a sentence (as the judge did here); (2) then a

juvenile offender has the same right as an adult to seek a sentence

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 19 of 29

modification based on their progress towards rehabilitation, though this

requires the permission of the prosecuting attorney if it has been more

than a year since sentencing; and (3) then juvenile offenders like Kelly

have an additional opportunity for sentence modification that is not

available to those who were adults when they committed their offense.

I.C. §§ 35-38-1-7.1(c); 35-38-1-17(k), (n). For murder, youthful offenders

like Kelly can have their sentence reexamined after twenty years when

courts have a better opportunity to assess whether the individual has been

rehabilitated, or is on that path. I.C. § 35-38-1-17(n)(2). Unlike with adult

offenders, there is no requirement to obtain the prosecutor’s consent for

this review.

Courts considering these sentence modification petitions have the

benefit of a “report from the department of correction concerning the

convicted person’s conduct while imprisoned.” I.C. § 35-38-1-17(e)(2). And

the reviewing court will continue to be guided by the sentencing-related

constitutional provisions, including those requiring distinct treatment of

juvenile offenders. This gives a petitioner a chance to show the court that

their immaturity at the time of the crime was truly transient and that they

are not irreparably corrupt. The court reviewing the petition will be in a

better position to evaluate the petitioner’s capacity for reform than the

court at the initial sentencing.

Thus, the legislature constructed precisely the sort of sentencing

framework Kelly says the constitution demands, which is one with built-

in flexibility to recognize the distinct nature of offenses that children

commit and to both assess and then later reassess their capacity for

reform. Especially for an issue like this, where Kelly’s argument focuses

on evolving understandings—an evolving scientific understanding and an

evolving understanding of Kelly’s personal development—prudence

cautions towards relying on the legislature’s more flexible solution

vindicating our Constitution’s commands rather than resorting to a more

calcified court-crafted rule. See In re Adoption of P.J.W., 248 N.E.3d 574, 579

n.3 (Ind. 2025) (explaining that “we generally avoid addressing

constitutional questions if a case can be resolved on other grounds”).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 20 of 29

b. Article 1, Section 18

Article 1, Section 18 states, “[t]he penal code shall be founded on the

principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.” Ind. Const. art. 1,

§ 18. Since our State’s founding, this concern has been especially acute for

juvenile offenders.

During the debates leading to the 1851 Constitution, juvenile offenders

were the subject of an impassioned speech by delegate James Bryant. He

stressed that the goal of punishment “is two-fold: the prevention of crime

and the reformation of the offender,” and he argued that sending children

to prison would not serve these goals because often they are “the victims

of dissolute parents and neglected education.” Report of the Debates and

Proceedings of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution of the State of

Indiana 1903 (1850). Mr. Bryant made these remarks in support of

amending the language of what became Article 9, Section 2 so that the

General Assembly would have to provide separate reformatory

institutions for juvenile offenders rather than housing them with adult

offenders. Id.

Section 18’s requirement applies to Indiana’s criminal code generally,

and we have repeatedly held that individual, fact-specific challenges of

the penal code’s applications are not reviewable under Article 1, Section

18. Ratliff v. Cohn, 693 N.E.2d 530, 542 (Ind. 1998); Lowery v. State, 478

N.E.2d 1214, 1220 (Ind. 1985). Kelly argues that the blanket application of

Indiana’s penal code to juvenile offenders at sentencing violates Article 1,

Section 18 because it “fails to consider the unique characteristics of

children . . . when imposing adult penalties on them.” Appellant’s Br. at

50.

But this ignores the discretion our trial courts exercise in sentencing

when they consider an offender’s youth as a mitigating factor. It also

ignores that Kelly can seek a modification of his sentence under Indiana

Code section 35-38-1-17. Since the court that decides whether to modify a

juvenile’s sentence will be able to see the extent of the offender’s success

towards the rehabilitative goal, the penal code continues to ensure that

juveniles’ unique characteristics are taken into account before their

sentences are fully served. Indiana’s sentencing statutes, including its

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 21 of 29

sentence modification statutes, ensure that rehabilitation—not

vindictiveness—is the core of juvenile sentencing in Indiana.

c. Article 1, Section 15

Article 1, Section 15 of the Indiana Constitution provides, “[n]o person

arrested, or confined in jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor.” Ind.

Const. art. 1, § 15. This provision is typically invoked when a prisoner

suffers severe mistreatment, like being beaten or tortured. See, e.g., Roberts

v. State, 307 N.E.2d 501, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974); Kokenes v. State, 13 N.E.2d

524, 530 (Ind. 1938); Bonahoon v. State, 178 N.E. 570, 571 (Ind. 1931). And

we have specifically declined to interpret Article 1, Section 15 as

prohibiting anything more than physical abuse. Moore v. State, 771 N.E.2d

46, 55 (Ind. 2002) (“[T]he length of time a person has spent on death row

does not render his execution unconstitutional under the federal or state

constitution.”); Ratliff, 693 N.E.2d at 541.

Kelly acknowledges precedent holding that Article 1, Section 15 only

prohibits physical abuse, but asks us to reconsider this interpretation. He

argues that imposing a long term-of-years sentence on a juvenile offender

constitutes “unnecessary rigor” under the plain meaning of those words.

We disagree. “Article [1], § 15 is not a catch-all provision applicable to

every adverse condition accompanying confinement.” McQueen v. State,

711 N.E.2d 503, 505 (Ind. 1999). Even an extremely long sentence cannot

constitute unnecessary rigor. See id.; Moore, 771 N.E.2d at 55. The length of

a sentence may be unconstitutional because it is disproportionate to the

nature of the offense, but that is a claim under Article 1, Section 16, not

Section 15.

d. Article 1, Section 23

Kelly also argues that Indiana Code section 35-50-2-9 (the LWOP

statute) grants unequal privileges, violating Article 1, Section 23 of the

Indiana Constitution. That section provides, “[t]he General Assembly shall

not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities,

which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Ind.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 22 of 29

Const. art. 1, § 23. A statute creating disparate treatment does not violate

Section 23 if two conditions are met:

First, the disparate treatment accorded by the legislation must

be reasonably related to inherent characteristics which

distinguish the unequally treated classes. Second, the

preferential treatment must be uniformly applicable and

equally available to all persons similarly situated.

Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 51 N.E.3d 195, 198 (Ind. 2016)

(quotation omitted).

The LWOP statute provides procedural protections for defendants

when the State seeks a sentence of life without parole. For example, the

State must prove statutorily prescribed sentencing aggravators beyond a

reasonable doubt, and where a jury convicts the defendant, the defendant

is entitled to have the jury reconvene for the sentencing. I.C. § 35-50-2-9(a),

(d). Kelly argues his case reflects that the statute produces two classes of

offenders: (1) those, like him, “who are eligible for [an] LWOP sentence

but are not charged under” the LWOP statute, so they do not receive the

statute’s protections; and (2) “those who are eligible for [an] LWOP

sentence and are” charged under the LWOP statute, so they do receive the

statutory protections. Appellant’s Br. at 54.

We agree with the State that the disparate treatment is reasonably

related to the inherent characteristics distinguishing the classes. Simply

put, an LWOP sentence is lengthier than Kelly’s sentence because Kelly’s

sentence allows for Kelly’s eventual release. And we cannot say it is

unreasonable for the legislature to provide heightened statutory

protections for heightened sentences. It makes no difference that Kelly

was eligible for an LWOP sentence since that is not the sentence he

received.

2. Federal Constitutional Claims

Having concluded that Kelly’s state constitutional law claims fail, we

turn to his federal claims.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 23 of 29

a. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits

“cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. And to

determine what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment under the

federal constitution, “courts must look beyond historical conceptions to

the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing

society.” Wilson, 157 N.E.3d at 1170 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,

58 (2010)).

Those standards reflect that we sentence juveniles differently than we

sentence adults because children are inherently different than adults.

Miller, 567 U.S. at 465. As we’ve recognized when applying our state

constitution, juvenile crimes often “reflect[] unfortunate yet transient

immaturity,” even for heinous crimes like murder. Id. at 479 (quoting

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005)). So the federal constitution

restricts courts to sentencing juvenile homicide offenders to life without

parole only after considering the “offender’s youth and attendant

characteristics.” Id. at 483. And a life without parole sentence is excessive

for all but “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable

corruption.” Id. at 479–80.

At the same time, a sentencing court does not have to make any finding

that a juvenile offender is irreparably corrupt before imposing life without

parole; as long as there are procedures in place for the consideration of an

offender’s age, a life without parole sentence is not unconstitutional.

Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 211; Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98, 105 (2021) (“In

a case involving an individual who was under 18 when he or she

committed a homicide, a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both

constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.”).

Kelly argues that his 110-year sentence violates these Eighth

Amendment protections, but we disagree for two reasons. First, as we

explained above, Kelly was sentenced to a term of years, not life without

parole. Supra, Section II.B.1.a. Second, even if Miller did apply, its

requirements were satisfied here because Indiana has procedures in place

to ensure that only “the rare juvenile offender” is sentenced to die behind

bars. See Jones, 593 U.S. at 108. The trial court considered Kelly’s age before

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 24 of 29

imposing the term-of-years sentence. And the legislature has afforded him

a statutory right to seek a sentence modification to a reduced or

suspended sentence after he has served twenty years. I.C. § 35-38-1-

17(n)(2).

b. Fourteenth Amendment

Kelly next argues that sentencing him without the LWOP statutory

protections violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause,

which prohibits a state from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. That clause

protects against “intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether

occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution.”

Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).

Kelly contends his sentence is equivalent to life without parole, so

equal protection entitled him to the LWOP statute’s protections. He

concedes that to prevail on his claim he must show there is no rational

basis for providing the statutory protections to those sentenced to LWOP

but not to him. Statutes are not struck down on rational basis review

“unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so

unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes

that we can only conclude that the [government’s] actions were

irrational.” Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 84 (2000).

Kelly’s argument fails because he is not similarly situated to defendants

the State charges under the LWOP statute—he received a more lenient

sentence. Defendants sentenced after the State successfully prosecutes

them under the LWOP statute will die in prison, while Kelly’s sentence

leaves open the possibility that he will be released from prison before he is

seventy years old. See Stewart v. State, 945 N.E.2d 1277, 1288–89 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2011) (rejecting the same equal protection argument because the

term-of-years sentence did not foreclose the possibility of parole), trans.

denied. He does not explain why treating these groups differently lacks

any rational basis, nor does he point to any cases reaching that conclusion.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 25 of 29

Having concluded that all of Kelly’s constitutional arguments fail, we

turn to his final argument, which is that our Court should exercise its

discretion to revise his sentence.

III. Appellate Rule 7(B)

Our Court has the constitutional authority to “review and revise”

sentences, Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4, but we held in Kelly’s direct appeal that

his sentence did not warrant revision. Kelly v. State, 719 N.E.2d 391, 395

(Ind. 1999). Kelly asks us to reconsider that decision.

Normally, claim preclusion would bar this request. “As a general rule,

when a reviewing court decides an issue on direct appeal, the doctrine of

res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review in post-conviction

proceedings.” State v. Stidham, 157 N.E.3d 1185, 1191 (Ind. 2020). There is

an exception for a court to review its own decisions, but we generally only

apply that exception in “extraordinary circumstances such as where the

initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.”

Id. Here, as in Stidham, Kelly first appealed his sentence prior to “two

major shifts in the law”: when we changed the standard by which we

exercise our authority under Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana

Constitution to review and revise sentences; and when the United States

Supreme Court began imposing limits on when juveniles could be

sentenced to the harshest punishments. Id. at 1192–93. Given these

circumstances—and the fact that the State has not invoked res judicata as

a reason precluding our review—we address the merits of Kelly’s Rule

7(B) claim.

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows this Court to revise a sentence “if,

after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that

the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the

character of the offender.” App. R. 7(B). Our principal role in reviewing a

sentence is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225

(Ind. 2008). Put another way, Rule 7(B) review allows us to “work toward

a goal of similar sentences for perpetrators committing the same acts who

have the same backgrounds.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2024)

(quotations omitted).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 26 of 29

We first evaluate the nature of Kelly’s offenses. “In considering the

nature of the offense we recognize the advisory sentence is the starting

point the Legislature selected as appropriate for the crime committed.”

Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 4 (Ind. 2014). Kelly’s fifty-five-year sentence for

each murder count was then the “presumptive” sentence and now the

“advisory” sentence, reflecting the midpoint of the sentencing range

between a minimum of forty-five years and a maximum of sixty-five

years. Kelly, 719 N.E.2d at 395 (“At the time Defendant committed these

crimes, Murder carried a presumptive 55 year sentence, with not more

than ten years added for aggravating circumstances and not more than ten

years subtracted for mitigating circumstances.”); I.C. § 35-50-2-3(a) (“A

person who commits murder shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of

between forty-five (45) and sixty-five (65) years, with the advisory

sentence being fifty-five (55) years.”).

Nothing about the circumstances of Kelly’s offenses suggests that the

presumptive sentence he received was inappropriate. He initiated the

confrontation that ended in his two victims’ deaths. Kelly, 719 N.E.2d at

393. He continued firing into Jackson after Jackson collapsed. Id. And he

killed Hobson for seemingly no reason besides the fact that Hobson asked

why Kelly had killed Jackson. Id. Kelly’s crimes, like all murders, were

“senseless and reprehensible,” Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014),

and his crimes were far from those “accompanied by restraint, regard, and

lack of brutality,” so the nature of his offenses was consistent with a

presumptive sentence, Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

Kelly’s character, particularly the fact that it was still developing given

his age at the time of the offenses, is the most significant factor in this case.

As noted throughout this opinion, juvenile offenders are less culpable and

more capable of rehabilitation. That is why we have reduced the sentences

of juvenile offenders through Rule 7(B) review more often than for other

offenders. Most often, we are moved to reduce these sentences because

otherwise the juvenile offender would be in prison for the rest of their life,

which is normally not appropriate given juveniles’ diminished culpability

and capacity for rehabilitation. See Brown, 10 N.E.3d at 8 (revising an

aggregate 150-year sentence for two murders to an aggregate 80-year

sentence); Fuller, 9 N.E.3d at 659 (revising an aggregate 150-year sentence

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 27 of 29

for two murders and a robbery to an aggregate sentence of 85 years);

Wilson v. State, 157 N.E.3d 1163, 1183–84 (Ind. 2020) (revising an aggregate

181-year sentence for two murders, armed robbery, and a gang

enhancement to 100 years). Kelly’s age at the time of his offenses is

comparable to the juvenile offenders in Brown, Fuller, Wilson, and similar

cases, but his sentence is substantially shorter than their sentences were

before they were revised. Kelly’s 110-year sentence is similar to Wilson’s

revised 100-year sentence, and Kelly will be sixty-nine years old on his

earliest possible release date. Supra, Section II. We observed in Wilson that

release in one’s mid-to-late sixties provides a “reasonable hope for a life

outside prison.” 157 N.E.3d at 1184.

Kelly’s sentence gives him that hope, which aligns with how we have

treated other juvenile offenders. His sentence is therefore appropriate

considering the nature of his offenses and his character, and we decline to

revise it.

Conclusion

For these reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment, and

we deny Kelly’s request that we revise his sentence under Appellate Rule

7(B).

Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 28 of 29

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Amy E. Karozos

Public Defender of Indiana

Katherine Province

Joanna Green

Deputy Public Defenders

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PC-108 | April 30, 2025 Page 29 of 29