Supreme Court of the United States · 2016 · Federal Courts
Reporter Citation Pending
Updated
Federal Courtssubstantive rulesretroactivityTeaguestate collateral reviewprocedural rulesMillerjuvenile sentencing
Facts
Montgomery was 17 when he killed a deputy sheriff in Louisiana in 1963. After a retrial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty without capital punishment, which under Louisiana law required an automatic sentence of life without parole. Because the sentence was mandatory, Montgomery had no opportunity to present mitigation related to youth or rehabilitation. Nearly 50 years later, after Miller held that mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment, Montgomery sought collateral review in Louisiana.
Issue
Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review a state court's refusal to give retroactive effect to Miller on state collateral review? If so, did Miller announce a new substantive constitutional rule that must be applied retroactively in cases on state collateral review?
Rule
When a new substantive rule of constitutional law controls the outcome of a case, the Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give that rule retroactive effect. A substantive rule is one that forbids criminal punishment of certain conduct or prohibits a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense; such rules are retroactive because they place convictions or sentences beyond the State's power to impose.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Ohio, Devin Cross was sentenced in 1998 to a punishment that was then mandatory for offenders who were 17 when they committed homicide. Years later, the Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule that makes that punishment excessive for all but a narrow subset of juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility. Ohio courts allow collateral motions alleging that a sentence is illegal under later Supreme Court Eighth Amendment decisions, but the state supreme court refuses relief solely because Devin's conviction became final before the new decision.
If Devin seeks review in the U.S. Supreme Court, what is the best answer?
Explanation. When a new substantive constitutional rule controls the outcome of a case, the Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give that rule retroactive effect, so a state court's refusal is reviewable. The majority reasoned that substantive rules place punishments beyond the State's power to impose, making contrary sentences unlawful and void; a State cannot constitutionally insist on continued enforcement in its own postconviction proceedings when those proceedings are open to the claim. (Derived from Montgomery v. Louisiana (n.d.).)