Kim Thul Ouk v. State
2014 Minn. LEXIS 255
Minn.2014Background
- In 1992, 15-year-old Kim Thul Ouk participated in an armed robbery of two gas stations; two clerks were killed and two customers were wounded. Ouk admitted participating but denied shooting anyone.
- A jury convicted Ouk of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder; he received two mandatory life sentences (with possibility of release after 30 years) and two 15-year sentences, aggregated consecutively.
- Ouk’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 1994 (State v. Ouk).
- After Miller v. Alabama (2012), Ouk filed a 2013 postconviction motion arguing his sentence violated Miller because the mandatory scheme prevented consideration of youth and was functionally equivalent to life without parole; he also argued Miller is retroactive and that the sentencing court failed to follow Miller procedures.
- The postconviction court denied relief, finding Miller is not retroactive; Ouk appealed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding Miller does not apply to a mandatory life-with-parole scheme and therefore the court did not reach Miller’s retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Miller apply to mandatory life-with-parole statutes? | Ouk: mandatory life-with-parole prevents sentencer from considering youth and thus violates Miller. | State: Miller targets mandatory life-without-parole; life-with-parole is materially different. | Held: Miller does not encompass mandatory life-with-parole; statute lawful under Miller. |
| Is Miller retroactive to Ouk’s sentence? | Ouk: Miller should be applied retroactively to his sentence. | State: Retroactivity need not be reached because Miller doesn’t apply here. | Held: Court declined to decide retroactivity because Miller does not make Ouk’s sentencing scheme unlawful. |
| Is an aggregated lengthy consecutive term the functional equivalent of life-without-parole? | Ouk argued his consecutive terms effectively deny release (implied). | State: Issue was not argued on appeal; waiver. | Held: Not decided—Ouk waived the argument by not briefing it on appeal. |
| Does Graham v. Florida or an exaggeration-of-criminality claim apply? | Ouk: sentence unlawful under Graham and exaggerates criminality. | State: Graham does not apply to juvenile homicide; prior decision upheld sentence as not exaggerated. | Held: Rejected—Graham inapplicable to juvenile homicide; sentencing not an exaggeration of criminality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles requires ability to consider youth/mitigation)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (prohibits juvenile life-without-parole for nonhomicide offenses)
- Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013) (addressed Miller retroactivity where statute mandated life-without-parole)
- Roman Nose v. State, 845 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. 2014) (addressed Miller-related issues for life-without-parole sentences)
- State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1994) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentence)
- State v. Vang, 847 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 2014) (distinguishing life-with-parole from life-without-parole under Miller)