Narrative Opinion Summary
In State v. Tate, 2012-2763, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which addresses the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before the Miller decision. Chief Justice Johnson dissents, arguing that Miller established a new substantive rule of criminal procedure that should be applied retroactively to juvenile offenders sentenced prior to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dissent on Retroactivity of New Substantive Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Chief Justice Johnson argued that the new substantive rule established by Miller v. Alabama should be applied retroactively to juvenile offenders who were sentenced before the ruling.
Reasoning: Chief Justice Johnson dissents, arguing that Miller established a new substantive rule of criminal procedure that should be applied retroactively to juvenile offenders sentenced prior to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Non-Retroactivity of Miller v. Alabamasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In State v. Tate, the court determined that the ruling in Miller v. Alabama does not have retroactive effect on sentences imposed before the decision was made.
Reasoning: The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which addresses the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before the Miller decision.