DAVID, J.
This case involves a seventeen-and-a-half-year-old who murdered his ten-year-old brother. Andrew Conley confessed to the crime and pleaded guilty to murdering his brother, Conner, while Conley was babysitting Conner. Following five days of sentencing testimony, including the testimony of twelve witnesses and one-hundred-and-fifty-five exhibits, the trial court judge sentenced Conley to life without parole. We hold that based on the age of Conley, the age of Conner, and the particularly heinous nature of the crime, a sentence of life without parole was appropriate. We hold that on the facts of this case, the sentence of life without parole is constitutional.
. . . .
As other states have held, and we agree, defendant’s Roper and Graham analysis is flawed because “Roper expressly and Graham implicitly recognize that life without parole is not cruel and unusual punishment for a minor who is convicted of a homicide.” Missouri v. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d 369, 376–77 (Mo. 2010).
Dickson, C.J., and Massa, J., concur.
Rucker, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Sullivan, J., concurs:
At the age of seventeen Andrew Conley murdered his ten-year-old brother. I agree with the majority that Dr. Daum’s testimony was properly admitted and I do not believe the trial court manifestly abused its discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case. However, I do not agree Conley should have been sentenced to die in prison. Therefore I respectfully dissent.
. . . .
I disagree with the majority’s characterization of Conley’s “hardened character.” Slip op. at 12. While many juveniles may commit crimes that “reflect[] unfortunate yet transient immaturity,” only “the rare juvenile” is capable of committing a crime that “reflects irreparable corruption.” See Roper, 543 U.S. at 573. I cannot conclude at this time that Andrew Conley is one of those rare juveniles. [Footnote omitted.] For this reason I would revise his sentence to the maximum term of sixty-five years.