2014-M-262 Tony Allen Roman Nose, petitioner, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant.
MAJORITY: The question presented in this case is whether the post-conviction court erred by
resentencing respondent Tony Allen Roman Nose to life with the possibility of release after 30 years based on a legal conclusion that the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to a juvenile whose sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release (LWOR) became final before the Miller rule was announced. Because the post-conviction court’s legal conclusion is in direct conflict with Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013), and the circumstances of this case do not warrant granting relief to Roman Nose under our supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice, we reverse the post-conviction court’s January 28, 2012 order and reinstate the original sentence of LWOR.
HELD: 1. When an appellate court is able to grant effectual relief, an appeal is not moot.
2. The post-conviction court erred when it resentenced Roman Nose based on a legal conclusion that is in direct conflict with Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013).
3. The circumstances of this case do not warrant granting relief to respondent under our supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice.
Reversed, sentence reinstated.
CONCUR: Justice Anderson opined: “I join with the majority, as I believe the result in this case is dictated by Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013), and Roman Nose has not presented any compelling reason for overruling that decision. In Chambers, we analyzed the
retroactivity of Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) using the standard for retroactivity laid out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989). Although I joined Chambers, and I join the majority today, I write separately because it is my view that the Miller retroactivity analysis fits awkwardly, at best, in the Teague framework, and those tensions are also present in the case we decide today.
CONCUR: Justice Stras opined: “I join all but Part III of the court’s opinion because I continue to doubt our authority to reduce sentences or reverse convictions in the interests of justice or under some comparable, “highly subjective” power, State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 867-68
(Minn. 2012) (Stras, J., dissenting), such as a supervisory power over the district courts. Here, the court entertains the possibility of reducing Roman Nose’s sentence based on “our supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice,” despite having correctly concluded that there is no reversible error. Because the court can identify no grant of power to the judiciary that would allow it to reduce a person’s sentence in the absence of error, I would categorically reject Roman Nose’s request for relief and proceed no further. See id. at 867 (observing that there is no constitutional basis for reversing prophylactically in the “interests of justice”); see also State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276, 284 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring) (stating that the authority of the judicial branch is limited to the grant of “judicial power” in the Minnesota Constitution).
CONCUR: Justice Lillehaug opined: “I concur. While respondent’s attorney has made a creative argument, I agree with the majority that this appeal is not moot. On the remaining issues, I concur because the controlling authority is Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013), which we are bound to follow under the doctrine of stare decisis. One can only hope that the United States Supreme Court will take its earliest opportunity to clarify whether Miller v.
Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively.
DISSENT: Justice Page opined: “For the reasons set forth in section I of my dissent in Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311, 342-44 (Minn. 2013) (Page, J., dissenting), and Justice Paul Anderson’s dissent in that case, id. at 331-42 (Anderson, Paul, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.
Gildea (Dietzen and Wright)
Concur: Anderson
Concur: Stras
Concur: Lillehaug
Dissent: Page
[MURDER] [GILDEA]
No comments:
Post a Comment