334 P.3d 548
Wash.2014Background
- McNeil and Rice were ~17 years old at crime and convicted of aggravated first degree murder.
- They committed an armed robbery and murdered the Nickoloffs; two televisions were stolen.
- Juvenile court declined jurisdiction and transferred to Yakima County Superior Court; death penalty sought but later withdrawn.
- McNeil pleaded guilty to murder counts; Rice was tried and convicted at trial.
- Each received two life sentences without parole as mandatory minimums, with consecutive sentences based on victim vulnerability.
- Miller v. Alabama (2012) held mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment, prompting the Miller fix (Laws of 2014, ch. 130); PRPs were filed challenging pre-fix sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller fix requires denial of PRPs or allows relief | McNeil/Rice argue Miller fix creates prejudice and entitles relief | State argues Miller fix provides adequate remedy; PRPs should be dismissed | PRPs denied; Miller fix provides adequate remedy |
| Is life without parole always unconstitutional under Washington Const. Art. I, § 14 for juveniles | Petitioners contend LWOP always unconstitutional for juveniles | State contends not necessarily, and postures ex post facto challenges fail | Not reached on merits; collateral attacks rejected due to pending time limits and Miller fix applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized consideration)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty cannot be imposed on juveniles)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile LWOP restrictions; context for Miller)
- Furman v. Georgia, 401 U.S. 371 (1975) (death penalty statutes for juveniles; historical comparison)
- Pillatos, 159 Wn.2d 459 (2007) (ex post facto analysis; Blakely fix parallel)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853 (2004) (ex post facto considerations under WA law)
- Forbis, 150 Wn.2d 91 (2003) (procedural vs substantive in ex post facto analysis)