Torvos Simpson
555 F. App'x 369
5th Cir.2014Background
- Simpson pleaded guilty in 1995 to carjacking resulting in a death (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and to a § 924(c) firearms offense; he was a juvenile at the time and received life without parole plus 60 months consecutive.
- He is a federal prisoner seeking authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his life sentence under Miller v. Alabama.
- Section 2255(h) permits a second or successive § 2255 only if certified by the court of appeals as based on (1) newly discovered evidence meeting a high standard, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- Simpson argues Miller—which held mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment—announced a new rule and was made retroactive on collateral review. The government does not oppose his authorization motion.
- The Fifth Circuit granted Simpson permission to file a successive § 2255 by finding he made a prima facie showing that his claim rests on a new rule of constitutional law the Supreme Court applied on collateral review; the court did not decide the ultimate retroactivity question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson may obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 based on Miller | Miller announced a new constitutional rule barring mandatory LWOP for juveniles and was made retroactive by the Supreme Court’s application in Jackson | Government does not oppose authorization | Granted authorization: Simpson made a prima facie showing under § 2255(h)(2) to file a successive motion |
| Whether the court decides Miller’s ultimate retroactivity on collateral review | Simpson urges the court to treat Miller as retroactive because the Supreme Court applied it in a collateral case | Government did not contest; lower courts conflict on retroactivity | Court declined to resolve ultimate retroactivity but relied on Miller’s procedural posture (direct appeal + collateral case) to find prima facie merit |
| Standard for granting leave to file a successive § 2255 | Simpson contends prima facie showing suffices to proceed to district court | No opposition to application of prima facie standard | Court applied Reyes-Requena prima facie standard and emphasized district court remains the next gate to adjudicate merits |
| Effect of Supreme Court applying a new rule in a collateral case | Simpson contends Supreme Court’s application to Jackson indicates retroactivity to similarly situated defendants | Not disputed | Court treated the Supreme Court’s application in Jackson as strong evidence supporting retroactivity for prima facie purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (held mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and was applied in both a direct and a collateral case)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (principle that a new rule applied in the announcing case supports evenhanded retroactive application to similarly situated defendants)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (prima facie standard for authorization to file successive § 2255 motions)
- Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussing prima facie threshold for successive petitions)
- In re Morris, 328 F.3d 739 (5th Cir. 2003) (district court as second gate after appellate authorization for successive § 2255)