Thompson v. Roy, 793 F.3d 843

Background

In 2009 a jury convicted Stafon Thompson of multiple murders committed when he was 17; Minnesota law mandated two consecutive life-without-parole sentences.
Thompson’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, holding that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and requires individualized sentencing.
Thompson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition arguing Miller renders his mandatory life sentences unconstitutional and seeks collateral relief.
A magistrate judge and the district court dismissed the § 2254 petition, concluding Miller does not apply retroactively; Thompson appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, relying principally on its recent precedential decision in Martin v. Symmes, and rejected arguments that Miller announced a substantive or watershed rule or should be applied retroactively for fairness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively on collateral review to cases on § 2254 petitions	Miller announced a substantive rule (or at least a watershed procedural rule) that should apply retroactively to vacate mandatory juvenile LWOP sentences	Miller announced a new procedural rule that is not substantive or watershed and therefore is not retroactive under Teague	Miller is not retroactive on collateral review; § 2254 relief denied (affirmed)
Whether Miller is substantive because it makes age an element of the offense (invoking Alleyne)	Miller effectively makes age an element and thus creates a substantive rule that alters punishment exposure	Alleyne post-dates Miller; Alleyne’s retroactivity would itself be required and was not argued or decided here	Rejected; cannot bootstrap Alleyne onto Miller to transform Miller into a substantive retroactive rule
Whether related Eighth Amendment juveniles cases (Roper, Graham, Atkins) require Miller’s retroactivity	Courts have applied Roper/Graham/Atkins retroactively, so Miller should be treated similarly	Miller differs: it changes sentencing procedure (decision-making authority), not a categorical bar on punishment	Rejected; Miller is distinguishable from categorical rules like Atkins and is procedural
Whether Jackson v. Hobbs (consolidated with Miller) indicates Miller’s retroactivity for other collateral cases	The Supreme Court’s grant and remand in Jackson implies evenhanded justice requires retroactivity to similarly situated defendants	Jackson’s remand did not decide retroactivity; the State did not press non-retroactivity in Jackson, so the Court didn’t address it	Rejected; Jackson’s remand does not establish Miller’s retroactivity to other collateral cases

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized sentencing)
Martin v. Symmes, 782 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2015) (Miller is not retroactive on collateral review)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (categorical bar to executing intellectually disabled defendants)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (new rules that alter fact-finding or allocation of decision authority are procedural for retroactivity)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework limiting retroactive application of new rules on collateral review)
Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007) (describing exceptions to nonretroactivity: substantive and watershed procedural rules)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel as an example of a possible watershed rule)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 135 S. Ct. 1546 (2015) (Supreme Court granted certiorari on Miller’s retroactivity question shortly after Martin)