Davis v. McCollum
798 F.3d 1317
10th Cir.2015Background
- Davis, a juvenile, was tried as an adult in Oklahoma for first‑degree murder and sentenced to life without parole on Oct 19, 1992.
- OCCA affirmed the sentence on Feb 23, 1995; final later that year due to no certiorari petition.
- Davis filed state applications for post‑conviction relief in 2013 and 2014; they were denied.
- Davis filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 on May 16, 2014, asserting Miller retroactivity, ineffective assistance, and juvenile status challenges.
- The district court held the ineffective‑assistance and juvenile‑status claims time‑barred and denied a COA; the court did not grant relief on the Miller issue, and on appeal the COA was denied.
- The appellate court applies AEDPA deferential review and addresses whether Miller retroactivity tolls the AEDPA deadline and whether Davis’s non‑timely claims warrant relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller is retroactive on federal collateral review. | Davis argues Miller applies retroactively to permit COA. | Davis’s interpretation is disputed; retroactivity not clearly established. | Unclear retroactivity; but even if retroactive, no COA. |
| Whether Davis’s life-with-parole sentence for a juvenile violates the Constitution under Miller. | Davis contends Miller renders his sentence unconstitutional. | Oklahoma’s discretionary but non‑mandatory scheme is not mandated by Miller. | Miller does not apply to non‑mandatory schemes; no COA. |
| Whether any potentially timely Miller claim was properly presented or blocked by timeliness rules. | Davis relies on Miller to avoid AEDPA deadline. | Timeliness and waiver defeated these claims. | Timeliness issue resolved against Davis; no COA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Croft v. Williams, 773 F.3d 170 (7th Cir. 2014) (Miller’s retroactivity and scope debated among circuits)
- Evans‑Garcia v. United States, 744 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2014) (discusses Miller impact on discretionary schemes)
- Bell v. Uribe, 748 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2014) (Miller applied variably to juvenile sentencing schemes)
- Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2012) (timeliness considerations under AEDPA)