In a six three decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Montgomery v. Louisiana that Miller’s prohibition on automatic life without parole sentences for child homicide offenders announced a new substantive rule that, under the Constitution, is retroactive in cases on state collateral appeal review. In the wake of Miller v. Alabama, a case that abolished automatic life without parole sentencing of children under the age of 18 convicted of murder, the question has arisen whether it’s holding in Miller is retroactive to child offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided.
Three years later, the Supreme Court has finally laid this question to rest. Justice Kennedy, delivering the majority opinion for the court said, “The court now holds that when a new substantive rule or constitutional law controls the outcome of a case, the constitution requires state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to that rule.” Justice Kennedy further stated, “This Court’s precedent cases addressing the nature of substantive rules, their differences from procedural rules, and their history of retroactive application, established that the constitution requires substantive rules to have retroactive effect, regardless of when a conviction became final.”
A substantive rule forbids criminal punishment of certain primary conduct or prohibits a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense. “Under this standard, Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on collateral review,” said Justice Kennedy. The Court explained that Miller is retroactive because it necessarily carries a significant risk that a child faces a punishment that the law cannot impose on him.
The court also took this occasion to admonish lower courts by emphasizing the point that the primary and central mitigating factor to be considered in the sentencing of child offenders is the science of their undeveloped brains and associated behaviors of impulsiveness, lack of foresight, lack of comprehension, inability to assess risk, and susceptibility to be influenced by peers. The court added that, because of this controlling mitigating factor, sentencing child offenders to life without parole should be rare.
In expressing judicial economy, the court concluded, “Giving Miller retroactive effect does not require states to relitigate sentences in every case where a child offender received mandatory life without parole,” and then recommended that, “a state may remedy a Miller violation by extending parole eligibility to child offenders, rather than by resentencing them.” The court then reversed and remanded the Montgomery case to proceed in the manner of its opinion. Justice Kennedy delivered the Supreme Court opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted against Montgomery and filed dissenting opinions. From the belly of the beast at Prison Radio, I am Shakaboona, Thank you for listening.
These commentaries are recorded by Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio.
