2013-M-237             Timothy Patrick Chambers, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY: Appellant Timothy Chambers was found guilty by a Rice County jury of first-degree murder and related charges arising out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on May 3, 1996, in which a deputy sheriff was killed.  The district court sentenced Chambers on the first-degree murder conviction to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.  We affirmed Chambers’ conviction and sentence on direct appeal, concluding, among other things, that his life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 In 2007, Chambers filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied.  We affirmed the post-conviction court on appeal.

 In May 2011, Chambers filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.  The post-conviction court denied Chambers’ petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the petition was time barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2012), and that none of the exceptions to the time bar applied. 

On appeal, Chambers relies upon recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court to support his argument that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, and that those cases satisfy an exception to the time bar under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(3). 

Because we conclude that the cases upon which Chambers relies are either not applicable to Chambers, or do not apply retroactively to him, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.

HELD:  1. Because the rule announced in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), only applies to non-homicide offenders and does not apply to those convicted of homicide, appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Graham rule.

2. The rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), is a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that is neither substantive nor a watershed rule implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.  Therefore, appellant is not entitled to the retroactive benefit of the Miller rule in a post-conviction proceeding.

3. The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s post-conviction petition without a hearing because the petition was untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a) (2012), and none of the exceptions in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b) (2012), apply.

Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justices Barry Anderson and Wright opined: “I join the majority opinion because I agree with the majority’s analysis that under existing precedent the rule in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.  I write separately to observe that any modification of the existing precedent should be left to the United States Supreme Court, whether here or in some other case, because the Court has determined the constitutional limits that underlie Miller, and it is United States Supreme Court jurisprudence at issue in the matter before us.  The parties here did not brief other  potential avenues for relief under Minnesota law, so contrary to the dissent, I would not reach those questions.  I believe such issues are better left for another day, with a better record, and perhaps a clearer explanation of retroactivity doctrine by the United States Supreme Court.

DISSENT:  Justices Paul Anderson and Page opined: “I respectfully dissent.  I am loathe to join an opinion of our court that permits an unconstitutional sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release to remain in place in Minnesota.  My obligation and duty to dissent is heightened by the knowledge that the United States Supreme Court has “likened life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty itself.” 

The Supreme Court has apprised us of the fact that appellant Timothy Patrick Chambers’s sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release is tantamount to a death sentence.  We must not only listen to, but we must respond appropriately to the message the Supreme Court has sent to us.  Unfortunately, with the decision rendered by the majority today, we have failed to do so.

DISSENT:  Justices Page and Paul Anderson opined: “I join in the dissent of Justice Paul Anderson.  I write separately, however, because I would be remiss if I did not point out that, by its decision today, the court fails in carrying out one of our most basic responsibilities.  At the core, our court is responsible for ensuring that justice is done.  In the case of Timothy Chambers, justice has not been done.

Dietzen (Gildea and Stras)

               Concur:  Barry Anderson and Wright

               Dissent:  Paul Anderson and Page

               Dissent:  Page and Paul Anderson

[MURDER]

A11-1954,