Ethan Allen Windom v. State
162 Idaho 417
Idaho2017Background
- At age 16, Ethan Windom pled guilty to second-degree murder for brutally killing his mother and was sentenced to a determinate life sentence (life without parole). This Court affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Windom.
- Windom’s direct appeal became final June 21, 2011; the one-year window for Idaho post-conviction petitions expired June 21, 2012.
- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama (June 25, 2012), holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional and requiring consideration of youth-related factors before imposing LWOP.
- Montgomery v. Louisiana (Jan. 25, 2016) held Miller’s rule substantive and retroactive on collateral review; Windom moved to amend his state post-conviction petition the next day to add a Miller/Montgomery claim.
- The district court denied the motion to amend as futile (finding Miller/Montgomery inapplicable because Windom’s sentence was discretionary) and dismissed Windom’s petition as untimely; the Idaho Supreme Court vacated dismissal, reversed the denial of leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Miller/Montgomery claim | Windom: Montgomery made Miller retroactive; he filed to amend promptly after Montgomery, so claim is timely | State: Petition was barred by the one-year statute and Montgomery cannot cure untimeliness | Held: Motion to amend timely—Montgomery created a new, retroactive claim and Windom moved within a reasonable time |
| Applicability of Miller/Montgomery to discretionary LWOP | Windom: Miller requires courts to consider youth-related factors before imposing any LWOP, mandatory or discretionary | State: Miller/Montgomery only invalidate mandatory LWOP; Windom’s sentence was discretionary so they do not apply | Held: Miller/Montgomery apply where a juvenile received LWOP without record evidence showing Miller factors were considered; applicability not limited to mandatory schemes |
| Futility based on sentencing transcript | State: Transcript shows judge considered youth and other factors; amendment would be futile | Windom: Transcript lacks individualized evidence of youth’s attendant characteristics required by Miller | Held: Denial as futile was erroneous—sentencing record did not show individualized consideration required by Miller/Montgomery |
| Need for on-record consideration versus retrospective justification | Windom: A retrospective statement by judge post-Miller does not replace the required on-the-record consideration at sentencing | State: Court argued sentencing judge effectively applied heightened standards | Held: Miller/Montgomery require consideration at sentencing (or equivalent record evidence); retrospective conclusions do not satisfy the rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (juvenile LWOP requires consideration of youth and its attendant characteristics)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (Miller announced a substantive rule and is retroactive on collateral review)
- State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873 (Idaho Supreme Court decision affirming Windom's sentence on direct appeal)
- Ferrier v. State, 135 Idaho 797 (Idaho post-conviction proceedings treated as civil; civil rules apply)
- Charboneau v. State, 144 Idaho 900 (post-conviction claims unknown within limitations period must be filed within a reasonable time after discovery)