Term: 2015
Docket: 14-280
Montgomery v. Louisiana
- Pro
14-280 MONTGOMERY V. LOUISIANA DECISION BELOW: 141 So.3d 264 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: “DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA CORRECTLY REFUSED TO GIVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THIS CASE TO OUR DECISION IN MILLER v. ALABAMA, 567 U.S. __ (2012)?” ORDER OF March 30, 2015: RICHARD BERNSTEIN, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, AGAINST THIS COURTS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA CORRECTLY REFUSED TO GIVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THIS CASE TO OUR DECISION IN MILLER V. ALABAMA, 567 U. S. ____ (2012). CERT. GRANTED 3/23/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: Henry Montgomery has been incarcerated since 1963. Montgomery is serving a mandatory life sentence for a murder he committed just 11 days after he turned seventeen years of age. In light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. _, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 83 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), which holds that mandatory sentencing schemes "requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole" ... violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, Montgomery filed a state district court motion to correct his illegal sentence. The trial court denied Montgomery's motion, and on direct writ application, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Montgomery's application, citing State v. Tate, 2012--2763 (La. 11/5/13), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2663, 189 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014), which held that Miller is not retroactive on collateral review to those incarcerated in Louisiana. The question thus presented here is whether Miller adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2013-KP-1163
In the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its previous decision in Miller v. Alabama (2012), which held that mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, should be applied retroactively to cases on state collateral review. The petitioner, Henry Montgomery had been convicted of murder in Louisiana when he was 17 years old and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole; a sentence deemed unconstitutional by Miller v. Alabama ruling but not applied to him due his conviction predating it. In this landmark judgement, SCOTUS decided in favor of Mr.Montgomery with a majority vote stating that prisoners like him who were serving similar sentences must be given an opportunity for re-sentencing or consideration for parole.
In the dissenting opinion for Montgomery v. Louisiana, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to decide whether a state court's ruling was in line with federal law. They contended that this case should be left to the state courts as it involves retroactivity of new rules on cases already decided - an issue they believe is beyond their purview. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Miller v. Alabama (2012), stating it created a substantive rule rather than a procedural one which would allow its retroactive application under Teague v Lane (1989). The dissenters held that Miller merely required judges to consider youth as a mitigating factor before imposing life without parole sentences; it didn't categorically bar such sentences for juveniles or establish any right against disproportionate punishment.
