Page:Kelley v. Gordon.pdf/6

 In Teague v. Lane, supra, the United States Supreme Court adopted a new approach to retroactivity for criminal cases announcing new rules. The court held that, unless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to cases that have become final before the new rules are announced. Teague, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (plurality opinion). However, while many states have chosen to do so, this court is not required to follow Teague. In Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), the United States Supreme Court held that the Teague rule does not constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion.

We have never expressly adopted the Teague rule, and we hold that the particular posture of this case makes it unnecessary to decide as a general matter whether this court will do so. This court has already granted relief to Kuntrell Jackson on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Of course, Jackson was entitled to the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's decision in his own case. Yates v. Aiken, 484 U.S. 211 (1988). Nonetheless, as it now stands, a juvenile offender sentenced to an unconstitutional mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole by the State of Arkansas has obtained a new sentencing hearing. It would be patently unfair to decline to do so for other prisoners who are similarly situated. Teague, 489 U.S. at 300 (“[O]nce a new rule is applied to the