Songster v. Beard
35 F. Supp. 3d 657
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- §2254 habeas action challenging juvenile sentence under Miller v. Alabama retroactivity question.
- Question whether Miller is retroactive on collateral review; Third Circuit undecided; Eleventh Circuit held not retroactive; Pennsylvania and other courts split.
- Court views Miller as retroactive and applicable to Jackson on collateral review; Miller held to prohibit mandatory life without parole for juveniles.
- Court treats Miller as both retroactive and substantive under Teague; applies to Songster who was 15 at time of murder.
- Songster entitled to Miller relief; must be resentenced; no existing Pennsylvania process at time of sentencing for juveniles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Miller retroactive on collateral review? | Songster seeks retroactive application. | Respondent argues Miller not retroactive. | Yes; Miller retroactive as substantive rule. |
| Does Miller constitute a substantive rule under Teague? | Miller bans a category of punishment for juveniles. | Miller is procedural; does not fit substantive exception. | Miller is substantive and retroactive. |
| Should Miller apply to Jackson on collateral review? | Miller applied to companion case on collateral review. | Jackson's postures differ; no retroactive effect. | Yes; Miller applies retroactively to Jackson, thus to Songster. |
| Does Miller fit Teague’s first or second exception? | Miller’s substantive nature fits Teague's exceptions. | Unclear fit; many circuits disagree. | Miller fits the first Teague exception as substantive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (retroactive to collateral review; substantive ban on mandatory LWOP for juveniles)
- Jackson v. Hobbs, 132 S. Ct. 548 (U.S. 2012) (companion case; applied Miller retroactively to collateral review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (established retroactivity framework with two exceptions)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (clarified substantive vs. procedural Teague exceptions)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (applied retroactively; justification analogized to Miller)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (categorical ban on certain juvenile punishments; rationale cited by Miller)