
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kyle ALEXANDER
    NO. 2015-OK-1879
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    10/28/2016
   PER CURIAM:

| (Writ granted; case remanded. In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016) that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) announced a substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively, we remand the case to the 23rd Judicial District Court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in State v. Montgomery, 13-1163 (La. 6/28/16), 194 So.3d 606, and for resentencing pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1. In all other respects, the application is denied.

Relator has now fully litigated three applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

hi agree with the ruling to remand this matter to the trial court, but write separately to reiterate that the law now requires courts to acknowledge the qualitative differences between juvenile offenders and other offenders in sentencing, and that “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption” now constitutes an exceptional case. Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) (quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1197, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005)). In this matter, two separate Assumption Parish juries convicted the defendant Kyle Alexander of the second-degree murders of his high school classmates, Bryan Sagona and Clint Bonadona. The defendant, along with two friends, lured the victims to a remote location in Donaldsonville, dragged them from the car, and killed them. The defendant fired the shot that killed Bryan Sago-na. There is no doubt that the defendant committed brutal and shocking acts; however, the question of whether or not these acts and his behavior while incarcerated demonstrate an irretrievable depravity of character such that he will never be eligible for parole is a question for the district court after a meaningful hearing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and further mandated by Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), as revised (Jan. 27, 2016). Additionally, as I noted in State v. Montgomery, 13-1163 (La. 6/28/16), 194 So.3d 606, it is | ^crucial going forward that trial courts establish solid and thorough records in the Montgomery/Miller line of cases in order to aid appellate courts in developing this novel and important area of law.  