Dunlap v. Alabama

Background

A person convicted in Alabama asked the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for relief and then sought review by the Supreme Court. The Court allowed the petitioner to proceed without paying fees, granted review, vacated the lower court’s judgment, and sent the case back to the Alabama court for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).

Reasoning

The central question was whether the petitioner should receive retroactive relief under the rule announced in Montgomery. The Supreme Court did not decide that question here. Instead the Court vacated the judgment below and remanded so the state court can reconsider the claim under Montgomery. The Court’s disposition expressly leaves open whether the petitioner actually is entitled to relief.

Real world impact

The ruling sends this Alabama case back to state court for reconsideration under Montgomery and does not order any immediate relief. The final outcome for the petitioner depends on the state court’s review, which may consider procedural bars, plea agreements, or whether the sentence qualifies for the rule at issue. Because this is a grant-vacate-remand order, the decision is not a final, nationwide ruling on entitlement.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with the grant, vacatur, and remand but emphasized that the Court’s action does not express any view about whether the petitioner is entitled to relief, nor does it resolve state procedural bars, waivers, or whether the sentence truly was mandatory life without parole.