LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota

The majority correctly concludes that Martin is not entitled to retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama,—U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), under Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311, 331 (Minn.2013), and Roman Nose v. State, 845 N.W.2d 193, 200 (Minn.2014). But I write separately, as I did in Chambers and Roman Nose, to reiterate the need for resolution of this issue by the United States Supreme Court, and failing action in that forum, additional attention from our court.1

*293In Miller, the Supreme Court fashioned a straightforward rule of seemingly universal application:…