Narrative Opinion Summary
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the petitioner in case No. 14-8106 is granted. A petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan is also granted, resulting in the judgment being vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of the precedent set by Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 136 (2016). Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, concurs with the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. The Court has held this petition pending the Montgomery decision and clarifies that its current action does not evaluate whether the petitioner is entitled to retroactive relief. On remand, it should be understood that the Court's decision does not imply any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, including whether issues such as independent state grounds for denial of relief, waiver of entitlement through plea agreements, or the classification of the petitioner’s sentence as mandatory life without parole, are relevant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Grant of Certiorari and Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the lower court's judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new legal precedent.
Reasoning: A petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan is also granted, resulting in the judgment being vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of the precedent set by Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 136 (2016).
In Forma Pauperis Statussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner was granted the ability to proceed without the usual costs associated with a legal action.
Reasoning: The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the petitioner in case No. 14-8106 is granted.
Non-Evaluation of Meritssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court clarifies that its decision to remand does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.
Reasoning: On remand, it should be understood that the Court's decision does not imply any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, including whether issues such as independent state grounds for denial of relief, waiver of entitlement through plea agreements, or the classification of the petitioner’s sentence as mandatory life without parole, are relevant.