not already been disclosed. See supra Part VI.A. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, by rendering the plea conditional with respect to the revelation of new information “of a serious nature” previously “unknown” to the court,” the court was not prevented from considering information other than the presentence report. See supra Part V.B.2.a; see also Aug. 13, 2015 Hr’g Tr. The double jeopardy claim is dismissed. VII. Improper Sentencing A. Law The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment ‘guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.’ ” See Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2463, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)) (<HOLDING>). This right “flows from the basic ‘precept of
holding the eighth and fourteenth amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of eighteen when their crimes were committed holding that life without parole sentences for nonhomicide offenses violates the eighth amendment holding that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes violates eighth amendment holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime holding that sentences imposing mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on individuals who committed their crimes when under the age of 18 violates the eighth amendment to the united states constitution