In re Meippen
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
WIGGINS, J. (dissenting)
¶ 16 Today the court avoids answering whether State v. Houston-Sconiers , 188 Wash.2d 1, 391 P.3d 409 (2017), applies retroactively when a prisoner collaterally attacks a final judgment. The majority asserts that because Time Rikat Meippen cannot show actual and substantial prejudice, we need not reach the retroactivity question. Majority at 980, 982. But we must decide whether Houston-Sconiers applies retroactively before we reach the issue of actual and substantial prejudice. Further, I conclude that Houston-Sconiers is a significant change of law, material to…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.