Does that decision apply retroactively to require new sentencing proceedings for the under-18 murderers sentenced under mandatory statutes and whose convictions were affirmed in final judgments before the Miller decision? The Supreme Court of Louisiana said no last year in State v. Tate, 130 So.3d 829. Applying Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the court said this is a procedural change, not a substantive one, and it does not qualify as a "watershed" ruling on the scale of Gideon v. Wainwright.
Last June, that court applied the Tate precedent to summarily reverse a grant of collateral relief to George Toca. Today the U.S. Supreme Court took up Toca's case. Unsatisfied with the way Toca's lawyer wrote the question presented, the Court rewrote them as:
1) Does the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012), apply retroactively to this case?
2) Is a federal question raised by a claim that a state collateral review court erroneously failed to find a Teague exception?