Wilson v. Alabama

Background

A person who sought review of a criminal sentence asked the Supreme Court for permission to proceed without paying fees and for review of an Alabama appellate court decision. The Court granted the fee request and the petition, vacated the lower court’s judgment, and sent the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of a recent decision called Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).

Reasoning

The central question was whether the petitioner should get retroactive relief because of the Court’s new ruling in Montgomery. The Supreme Court did not decide the merits here. Instead, it paused its own decision, vacated the lower-court judgment, and told the Alabama court to reconsider the case with Montgomery’s guidance. A separate opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Alito) emphasized that this action does not decide whether the petitioner actually deserves relief.

Real world impact

Lower courts in Alabama must review the petitioner’s request again and apply Montgomery when doing so. The Supreme Court’s order does not itself grant relief and leaves open important questions—such as whether state rules, plea agreements, or waiver prevent relief, or whether the sentence truly qualifies as a mandatory life-without-parole sentence. The ultimate result could change depending on what the Alabama court finds on these issues.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote separately to stress that the GVR does not resolve entitlement, forfeiture, plea-waiver issues, or whether the sentence is mandatory life without parole.