Rep. Haveman offered the following resolution:

            House Resolution No. 404.  

            A resolution to urge the United States Supreme Court to clarify whether its holding in Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively.

            Whereas, On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a sentencing scheme that mandates a life sentence without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. The Miller decision struck down laws requiring life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses in 28 states, including Michigan; and

            Whereas, The United States Supreme Court did not specify whether the Miller decision applied retroactively to those juvenile homicide offenders whose convictions were finalized prior to June 25, 2012. There are an estimated 2,000 offenders across the United States who were mandatorily sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles prior to that date; and

            Whereas, The question of the retroactive effect of the Miller decision has generated significant legal commentary and public interest, and has spawned a dichotomy of legal holdings and legislation across the nation. Courts and policymakers across the country have struggled with whether to apply the holding retroactively to juveniles convicted prior to June 25, 2012; and

            Whereas, The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued an opinion holding that Miller does not apply retroactively to the approximately 330 offenders in this state who are currently serving life sentences without parole for homicide offenses committed prior to their 18th birthday and who exhausted their appeals prior to June 25, 2012; and

            Whereas, The Michigan Supreme Court ruling aligns with decisions in some states but diverges from decisions in other states. State supreme courts in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania found that Miller does not apply retroactively. In contrast, state supreme courts in Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Texas have ruled that Miller does apply retroactively. Cases regarding the question of retroactivity remain pending before state supreme courts in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina; and

            Whereas, Policymakers have also grappled with interpreting the Miller decision. Of the 28 states with laws mandating life sentences without parole for juvenile homicide offenders, 13 states have subsequently passed legislation in response to the holding, with four legislatively applying Miller retroactively and five legislating that Miller is to be applied prospectively only; and

            Whereas, On at least two occasions, the United States Supreme Court has rejected an opportunity to revisit Miller and to settle the question of retroactive application; and

            Whereas, As courts and state legislatures continue to struggle with this important issue and affected parties continue to await the outcomes of the appellate and legislative processes, the United States Supreme Court should give clarity and certainty to the question, so that there can be finality and a uniform application of the law across the United States; now, therefore, be it

            Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we urge the United States Supreme Court to clarify whether its holding in Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively; and be it further

            Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Justices of the United States Supreme Court.