Maxwell, Ex Parte Terrell
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 264
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Applicant was 17 at the time of capital murder, convicted by a jury, and automatically sentenced to life without parole due to juvenile status.
- Texas Third Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2010 without addressing Miller retroactivity.
- Miller v. Alabama (2012) announced that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and requires individualized sentencing.
- The Supreme Court decision in Miller occurred after applicant’s conviction became final; the court considered retroactivity under Teague v. Lane.
- The Texas court concluded Miller announced a new substantive rule and applied retroactively, granting habeas relief and remanding for discretionary sentencing.
- Remand instructed sentencing authorities to consider life with the possibility of parole or life without parole based on the juvenile’s history and characteristics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller is retroactive under Teague | Maxwell argues Miller is not retroactive | Maxwell's position countered by retroactivity findings in this opinion | Miller is retroactive as a new substantive rule |
| What remedy follows retroactivity | Retroactivity requires limited relief or nothing specific | Retroactivity merits a resentencing proceeding | Remand for sentencing to allow discretionary consideration of parole eligibility or life without parole |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules on collateral review)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural rules for retroactivity; watershed exception narrow)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (requires jury finding for aggravating factors; procedural–constitutional implications)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses unconstitutional)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (mentally retarded offenders cannot be executed; evolving standards of decency)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (U.S. 2008) (states may apply Teague retroactivity norms; not controlling against state practice)
- State v. Tate, 130 So.3d 829 (La. 2013) (Miller treated as procedural; illustrative retroactivity analysis in state court)