Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aiken v. Byars

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 12, 2014No. Appellate Case 2012-213286; 27465Published

1Dissent

Chief JUSTICE TOAL:

I respectfully dissent. I would find the petitioners are not entitled to resentencing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, -U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), because the Miller decision is retroactive only with respect to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life without parole (LWOP), and because South Carolina utilizes a non-mandatory sentencing scheme.11

Pursuant to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), a court decision implicating a constitutional right applies retroactively when the holding creates a new substantive rule or is a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. Schriro v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Talley v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. State v. CantrellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1967

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API