Miller v. State
53 A.3d 385
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Maryland Court of Appeals reconsidered Miller v. State on remand in light of Denisyuk v. State and Padilla v. Kentucky.
- Key questions: whether a recent Supreme Court decision is “new law” for retroactivity, what past event it retroactively affects, and when to measure newness.
- Miller’s conviction became final on September 1, 1999; Padilla was decided March 31, 2010; Denisyuk (Maryland) held Padilla retroactive in Maryland.
- Court reaffirmed Miller’s original holding that Padilla’s rule was not dictated by then-existing precedent as of September 1, 1999, and thus Miller’s coram nobis relief was denied.
- Maryland follows Teague v. Lane retroactivity framework; no separate Maryland Strickland rule; Padilla’s ill-suitedness for direct/collateral consequences did not retroactively affect Miller.
- Court ultimately affirmed the denial of Miller’s coram nobis petition and maintained finality considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test and timing for new law | Strickland standard is federal; Maryland should not diverge. | There is a single federal Strickland standard; Maryland follows Teague. | There is one nationwide Strickland standard; Maryland does not craft a separate theory. |
| Maryland retroactivity framework timing | Retroactivity should be judged by Padilla’s 2010 date. | Retroactivity depends on whether Padilla was dictated by 1999 precedent. | Retroactivity must be assessed as of September 1, 1999; Padilla not dictated then. |
| Direct vs collateral consequences relevance | Padilla’s ill-suitedness affects retroactivity analysis. | Ill-suitedness is a Padilla consideration but not a retroactivity predictor for 1999. | Padilla’s remark about direct/collateral distinction did not retroactively alter Miller. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 560 (2010) (holding on deportation advice under Strickland; retroactivity dispute ongoing elsewhere)
- Denisyuk v. State, 422 Md. 462 (2011) (Padilla retroactive in Maryland; discussed by Miller on remand)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (tests new retroactivity rule; dictates measurement time)
- Miller v. State, 196 Md.App. 658 (2010) (original Maryland decision reaffirmed; retroactivity analysis distinguished)
- Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 (1990) (illustrates when a rule is new or compelled by precedent)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (1990) (discussed Teague philosophy of new rules)
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (1997) (two-step Teague analysis (finality date and landscape))
- O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997) (finalityDate-based retroactivity analysis)