Appellate attorneys for the teen convicted of murdering her mother and attempting to murder her stepfather in 2024 argued before Mississippi’s highest court on Wednesday to overturn her life sentence, claiming a life sentence without parole is illegal.
Carly Gregg’s Conviction
The now-17-year-old Carly Gregg was 14 at the time of the fatal shooting of her mother, Ashley Smylie, 40, and attempted murder of her stepfather, Heath Smylie, 39. Gregg pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity for the atrocious acts that occurred in her Brandon home on March 19, 2024.
During her trial, she argued that she was suffering from severe mental illness, but the jurors did not accept this. She was found guilty of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and tampering with evidence by a Rankin County jury on September 20, 2024. Gregg was then sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Gregg’s attorney argues that her trial and sentencing were filled with a series of inadequacies and unfair judgments. They go as far as to say that her own attorney was ineffective during some of the proceedings. Her appellate counsel also argues that due to these inadequacies, her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
Case Precedent on Sentencing
Lead appeal attorney James Murphy cited Miller v. Alabama, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on in 2012, that mandatory life prison sentences for minors were unconstitutional, when arguing the strict standards governing juvenile life in prison without parole.
He told the Mississippi Supreme Court that Gregg’s sentence was unconstitutional because of the following hearing, and that the teen was not sentenced according to the court precedent.
Citing The Sentencing Hearing
“The sentencing phase — and I’m gonna use that term loosely — the sentencing phase of this case consisted of the court announcing the verdict of the jury and then transitioning immediately to asking the state whether they wanted to call their first sentencing witness,” Murphy explained.
Both the state and defense declined to call forth witnesses and said they would rest on the evidence and rely solely on “argument only” for Gregg’s sentencing.
“There was no meaningful mitigation development process,” Murphy argued. “There was no opportunity given to the defense to marshal mitigation witnesses. They were given no opportunity to call witnesses, family members, or teachers.”
Confusion With Sentencing Order
Justice Josiah Coleman read the sentencing order and began questioning whether Gregg received life in prison with or without parole.
“I don’t know that I agree that this a life without parole sentence. There’s life in prison, and there’s life without the possibility of parole for a term of years. I’m reading this sentencing order, and to me, it’s life imprisonment, not life without the possibility of parole,” Coleman said.
Murphy began to suggest that the confusion in the sentencing lies in the jury instructions, where they were presented with life in prison without the possibility of parole, but the sentencing order suggests life imprisonment.
“They were given the option of life or life with the possibility of parole,” Murphy recounted. “The prosecutor stood in front of the jury and told them that if you give her life with the possibility of parole, ‘We don’t know when she’s gonna get out.’”
Arguing Ineffective Counsel
Murphy elaborated that a statement made during the prosecution’s closing arguments was an “improper golden rule rhetoric,” claiming it was “appealing to the fears of the community,” and while allowed, should have been objected to by Gregg’s defense.
“She might be out,” and I’m paraphrasing here. “She may be out in as little as a year,” which I think we all know is outside the realm of possibility for a life sentence. “She may be out in as little as a year.” And again, I’m paraphrasing: “You may see her at the supermarket or you may see her at church, you may run into her at any place outside in public,” Murphy recited.
By paraphrasing and summarizing what was said at the criminal trial and sentencing hearing, the appellate defense attorney is showing that Gregg’s counsel was ineffective and that any such rhetoric made should have been objected to.
“We can see no strategic reason why a defense, a competent defense counsel, would not object to that type of rhetoric argued in a sentencing phase,” Murphy said.
Prosecution Offers Counterarguments
When offered their chance to speak, the state stood behind the sentencing order, stating that Gregg should remain behind bars for the rest of her life and not be given the chance at parole.
“Just because Gregg now says that she wishes she presented more evidence doesn’t mean she didn’t receive everything that she was entitled to under Miller,” Prosecutor Allison Hartman said.
Gregg’s attorneys removed their own jury instructions and did not object to the prosecution’s, allowing full control. “I think that goes beyond waiver, and the fact that Gregg agreed to those sentencing instructions, and now she can’t come back on appeal and say the trial court erred in giving those instructions,” Hartman said.
Request For Parole
Gregg’s appellate attorneys are requesting a re-sentencing hearing or for the defendant to be granted the opportunity for parole in the future. “She’s in good spirits. She’s hopeful. I think with the briefs we’ve filed, we’ve got a good chance of giving her some relief,” Murphy said.
There is no timeline for when or if a new sentence will be issued, so Gregg must await her fate once again.
