Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06758/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Holly Landry
Amicus Supporting Appellee
Lee Boyd Malvo
Appellee
Randall Mathena
Appellant

Document Text:

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court, March 18, 2019

Dismissed by Supreme Court, February 26, 2020

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6746

LEE BOYD MALVO,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL MATHENA, Chief Warden, Red Onion State Prison,

 Respondent - Appellant.

-----------------------------

HOLLY LANDRY,

 Amicus Supporting Appellee.

No. 17-6758

LEE BOYD MALVO,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL MATHENA, Chief Warden, Red Onion State Prison,

 Respondent - Appellant.

-----------------------------

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 1 of 25
2

HOLLY LANDRY,

 Amicus Supporting Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00375-RAJ-LRL; 2:13-cv00376-RAJ-LRL)

Argued: January 23, 2018 Decided: June 21, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge King 

and Judge Diaz joined.

ARGUED: Matthew Robert McGuire, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Stover Cooley, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Trevor S. Cox, 

Acting Solicitor General, Donald E. Jeffrey III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Michael Arif, ARIF & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Danielle Spinelli, Beth C. Neitzel, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND 

DORR LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 2 of 25
3

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

In Virginia in 2004, a defendant convicted of capital murder, who was at least 16 

years old at the time of his crime, would be punished by either death or life imprisonment 

without the possibility of parole, unless the judge suspended his sentence. After a 

Virginia jury convicted Lee Boyd Malvo of two counts of capital murder based on 

homicides that he committed in 2002 when he was 17 years old, it declined to 

recommend the death penalty, and he was instead sentenced in 2004 to two terms of life

imprisonment without parole, in accordance with Virginia law. 

Thereafter, Malvo, again seeking to avoid the death penalty, pleaded guilty in 

another Virginia jurisdiction to one count of capital murder and one count of attempted 

capital murder — both of which he also committed when 17 years old — and received 

two additional terms of life imprisonment without parole. 

After Malvo was sentenced in those cases, the Supreme Court issued a series of 

decisions relating to the sentencing of defendants who committed serious crimes when

under the age of 18. It held that such defendants cannot be sentenced to death; that they 

cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless they committed a 

homicide offense that reflected their permanent incorrigibility; and that these rules 

relating to juvenile sentencing are to be applied retroactively, meaning that sentences that 

were legal when imposed must be vacated if they were imposed in violation of the 

Court’s new rules. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 560 

U.S. 48 (2010); Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 

S. Ct. 718 (2016).

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 3 of 25
4

In these habeas cases filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we conclude that even though 

Malvo’s life-without-parole sentences were fully legal when imposed, they must now be 

vacated because the retroactive constitutional rules for sentencing juveniles adopted 

subsequent to Malvo’s sentencings were not satisfied during his sentencings. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order vacating Malvo’s four terms of life 

imprisonment without parole and remanding for resentencing to determine (1) whether 

Malvo qualifies as one of the rare juvenile offenders who may, consistent with the Eighth 

Amendment, be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole because his “crimes 

reflect permanent incorrigibility” or (2) whether those crimes instead “reflect the 

transient immaturity of youth,” in which case he must receive a sentence short of life 

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 734.

I

A

Over the course of almost seven weeks in the fall of 2002, Lee Malvo and John 

Muhammad — better known as the “D.C. Snipers” — murdered 12 individuals, inflicted 

grievous injuries on 6 others, and terrorized the entire Washington, D.C. metropolitan 

area, instilling an all-consuming fear into the community. 

The violence began on September 5, 2002, when Malvo — who was at the time 17 

years old — ran up to a man’s car in Clinton, Maryland, shot him six times with a .22

caliber handgun, and stole his laptop and $3,500 in cash. See Muhammad v. Kelly, 575 

F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2009). Ten days later, again in Clinton, Maryland, Malvo 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 4 of 25
5

approached a man who was in the process of closing a liquor store and shot him in the 

abdomen at close range with the handgun. Id. 

Muhammad and Malvo then went south for a short period. On September 21, 

Muhammad used a high-powered, long-range Bushmaster assault rifle to shoot two

women who had just closed a liquor store in Montgomery, Alabama. Malvo was seen 

approaching the women as the shots were being fired and then rummaging through their 

purses. One of the women died from her wounds. Muhammad, 575 F.3d at 362. Two 

days after that, a woman in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was fatally shot in the head with a 

Bushmaster rifle after closing the store where she worked. Again, Malvo was seen 

fleeing the scene with her purse. Id. at 362–63. 

Shortly thereafter, Muhammad and Malvo returned to the Washington, D.C. area

and, from October 2 until their capture on October 24, embarked on a series of 

indiscriminate sniper shootings with the Bushmaster rifle that left 10 more people dead, 3

seriously wounded, and the entire region “gripped by a paroxysm of fear,” convinced that

“every man, woman, and child was a likely target.” Muhammad v. State, 934 A.2d 1059, 

1065–66 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007). On October 2, shortly after 6 p.m., they shot and 

killed a man while he was in a grocery store parking lot in Montgomery County, 

Maryland. Id. at 1066. The next day, they murdered five people — four in the morning 

at different locations in Montgomery County, and a fifth that evening in Washington, 

D.C. Id. at 1067–69. The following day, they shot and seriously wounded a woman in 

Spotsylvania County, Virginia, while she was loading goods into her car. Id. at 1070. 

On October 7, they shot and gravely injured a 13-year-old boy in Prince George’s 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 5 of 25
6

County, Maryland, while he was on his way to school; two days later, they shot and 

killed a man at a gas station in Prince William County, Virginia; two days after that, they 

shot and killed another man at a gas station in Spotsylvania County, Virginia; and three 

days after that, they shot and killed a woman outside a Home Depot store in Fairfax 

County, Virginia. Id. at 1070–72. On October 19, they shot and seriously wounded a 

man while he was leaving a restaurant in Ashland, Virginia, and on October 22, they shot 

and killed a bus driver in Montgomery County, Maryland, the last of their sniper 

shootings. Id. at 1068, 1072.

Malvo and Muhammad were apprehended in the early hours of October 24 at a 

rest area in Frederick County, Maryland, while sleeping in a blue Chevrolet Caprice. A 

loaded .223 caliber Bushmaster rifle was found in the car, and a hole had been “cut into 

the lid of the trunk, just above the license plate, through which a rifle barrel could be 

projected.” Muhammad, 934 A.2d at 1075. Modifications had also been made to the 

car’s rear seat to allow access to the trunk area from the car’s passenger compartment. 

Id. After his arrest, Malvo told authorities in Virginia that “he and his ‘father,’ John 

Allen Muhammad, had acted as a sniper team . . . in an effort to extort ten million dollars 

from the ‘media and the government’” and that he had been the triggerman in 10 of the 

shootings. Later, however, when testifying as a witness at Muhammed’s first-degree 

murder trial in Montgomery County, Maryland, Malvo stated that “he had been the actual 

shooter of [the 13-year old boy] in Prince George’s County and of [the bus driver] in 

Montgomery County” and that “Muhammad had been the actual triggerman on all other 

occasions.” Id. at 1078. 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 6 of 25
7

In January 2003, a grand jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, returned an indictment 

charging Malvo as an adult with (1) capital murder in the commission of an act of 

terrorism, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-31(13); (2) capital murder for killing 

more than one person within a three-year period, in violation of § 18.2-31(8); and (3) 

using a firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of § 18.2-53.1. The prosecutor 

in that case sought the death penalty. Malvo pleaded not guilty to the charges, and, to 

ensure an impartial jury pool, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for the City of 

Chesapeake, Virginia.

At the trial, which took place during November and December 2003, Malvo 

acknowledged his involvement in the killings but asserted an insanity defense based on 

the theory that he had been indoctrinated by Muhammad during his adolescence and was 

operating under Muhammad’s control. To that end, defense counsel presented testimony 

from more than 40 witnesses who collectively described how Malvo was physically

abused and largely abandoned as a child growing up in Jamaica and Antigua; how, when 

he was 15 years old, he befriended John Muhammad, an American veteran who had taken 

his three children to live in Antigua without their mother’s knowledge; how Muhammad 

became a surrogate father for Malvo and brought him illegally to the United States in 

May 2001; how Malvo briefly reunited with his mother in the United States but then 

moved across the country in October 2001 to rejoin Muhammad, who had recently lost 

custody of his children; and how Muhammad then intensively trained Malvo in military 

tactics for nearly a year, telling Malvo that he had a plan to get his children back and 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 7 of 25
8

force America to reckon with its social injustices. The jury rejected Malvo’s insanity 

defense and convicted him of all charges, including the two capital murder charges. 

At the sentencing phase of trial, the jury was instructed to choose between the 

death penalty and life imprisonment without parole. During this phase, Malvo’s counsel 

presented additional evidence on Malvo’s background and history, and he stressed

Malvo’s youth and immaturity in arguing that Malvo should be spared the death penalty. 

The jury returned its verdict on December 23, 2003, finding “unanimously and beyond a 

reasonable doubt after consideration of [Malvo’s] history and background that there 

[was] a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that constitute a 

continuing serious threat to society” and also “that his conduct in committing the offense 

was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of 

mind.” Nonetheless, the jury, “having considered all of the evidence in aggravation and 

mitigation of the offense,” “fix[ed] his punishment at imprisonment for life” for each of 

his two capital murder convictions. 

After the jury was excused and a presentence report was prepared, the court 

conducted a final sentencing hearing on March 10, 2004, sentencing Malvo to two terms 

of life imprisonment, as required by Virginia law. See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264.4(A) 

(2004) (providing, for capital murder convictions, that where “a sentence of death is not 

recommended, the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life”). Under 

Virginia law, a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment for a capital murder offense 

committed on or after January 1, 1995, is ineligible for any form of parole. See Va. Code 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 8 of 25
9

Ann. §§ 53.1-165.1, 53.1-40.01. The court also sentenced Malvo to three years’ 

imprisonment for the firearm conviction. 

Following his conviction and sentencing in the Chesapeake City Circuit Court, 

Malvo entered an “Alford plea” pursuant to a plea agreement, see North Carolina v. 

Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (authorizing a defendant to waive trial and to consent to 

punishment without admitting participation in the acts constituting the crime), in the 

Circuit Court for the County of Spotsylvania, Virginia, pleading guilty to one count of 

capital murder, one count of attempted capital murder, and two counts of using a firearm 

in the commission of a felony. The plea agreement indicated that Malvo’s attorney had 

advised Malvo that he faced death or imprisonment for a term of life for the capital 

murder charge and a sentence of 20 years to life imprisonment for the attempted capital 

murder charge. In the agreement, Malvo waived his “right to an appeal” and admitted 

that “the Commonwealth ha[d] sufficient evidence to convict [him].” The 

Commonwealth in turn agreed to dismiss two pending charges and agreed that sentencing 

Malvo to two terms of life imprisonment without parole, as well as eight years’

imprisonment for the firearm offenses, was the “appropriate disposition in this case.” 

The Spotsylvania County Circuit Court held a plea and sentencing hearing on 

October 26, 2004, at which it confirmed that Malvo understood “that by pleading guilty 

[he was] giving up constitutional rights” — specifically, his “right to a trial by jury” and 

his “right to confront and cross examine [his accusers]” — and that he was also 

“probably giving up [his] right to appeal any decisions made by this Court.” After 

ensuring that Malvo understood the nature of the charges against him and had concluded, 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 9 of 25
10

after consulting with his lawyers, that his Alford plea was “in [his] best interests,” the 

court accepted Malvo’s guilty pleas, finding that they “were freely, voluntarily, and 

intelligently made.” It also “accepted and approved” the plea agreement itself. The court 

then sentenced Malvo to two terms of life imprisonment without parole for his capital 

murder and attempted capital murder convictions, plus eight years’ imprisonment for the 

firearm convictions. 

B

Nearly eight years after the conclusion of Malvo’s Virginia prosecutions, the 

Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits juvenile homicide offenders 

from receiving “mandatory life-without-parole sentences” and that, before sentencing 

such an offender to life without parole, the sentencing court must first consider the 

“offender’s youth and attendant characteristics.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 476, 483. In light of 

Miller, Malvo filed two applications for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, one challenging the lifewithout-parole sentences imposed by the Chesapeake City Circuit Court and the other 

addressing the same sentences from the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court.

The district court denied and dismissed with prejudice both applications, 

concluding that Miller was not “retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review,” 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), and that Malvo’s habeas applications therefore were time-barred 

under § 2244(d)’s 1-year period of limitation. After Malvo appealed, his case was placed 

in abeyance while this court and the Supreme Court addressed whether Miller was to be 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 10 of 25
11

applied retroactively. On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court held that “Miller

announced a substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on collateral review.”

Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 732. Accordingly, we remanded Malvo’s case comprising his 

two habeas applications to the district court for further consideration in light of 

Montgomery. 

By memorandum and order dated May 26, 2017, the district court granted both of 

Malvo’s habeas applications, vacating his four sentences of life imprisonment without 

parole and remanding to the Chesapeake City Circuit Court and the Spotsylvania County 

Circuit Court for resentencing in accordance with Miller and Montgomery. See Malvo v. 

Mathena, 254 F. Supp. 3d 820 (E.D. Va. 2017). In entering that order, the district court 

rejected the Warden’s argument that because the trial courts retained discretion under 

Virginia law to suspend Malvo’s life sentences in whole or in part, those sentences were 

not mandatory and therefore were not covered by the Miller rule. The court explained 

that the constitutional rule announced in Miller and restated in Montgomery provided 

relief not only from mandatory life-without-parole sentences but also potentially from

discretionary life-without-parole sentences. The district court also rejected the Warden’s 

argument that in sentencing Malvo, the Chesapeake City Circuit Court had actually 

considered whether Malvo was one of those rare juvenile offenders whose crimes 

reflected irreparable corruption, as required by Miller. And finally, the court rejected the 

Warden’s argument that Malvo, in entering the Alford plea in Spotsylvania County 

Circuit Court, waived the Eighth Amendment rights announced in Miller. In conclusion, 

the district court recognized that it was “completely possible that any resentencing

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 11 of 25
12

conducted in accordance with Miller and Montgomery [might] result[] in the same 

sentences,” id. at 834, but it concluded that Malvo was entitled to the procedure described 

in those cases before being sentenced to life without parole. 

From the district court’s May 26, 2017 order, the Warden filed this appeal. 

II

In its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court recognizes that 

persons under the age of 18 as a class are constitutionally different from adults for 

purposes of sentencing. Juveniles inherently lack maturity; they do not have a fully 

formed character and a fully developed sense of responsibility; and they are both more 

susceptible to external influences and less able to control their environment than are 

adults. Juveniles are also more capable of change than adults and therefore more capable 

of being reformed. Because of these attributes of youth, juveniles are not as morally 

culpable as adults when engaging in similar conduct. In light of these characteristics, the 

Court recognizes that juveniles as a class are less deserving of the most severe 

punishments. But it also recognizes that a rare few juveniles may nonetheless be found to 

be permanently incorrigible.

Giving effect to these observations, the Supreme Court has developed a juvenilesentencing jurisprudence beginning with its 2005 decision in Roper, where it held that the 

death penalty cannot be imposed on juvenile offenders. See 543 U.S. at 571. That 

decision was followed by Graham, where the Court held that “[t]he Constitution 

prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 12 of 25
13

not commit homicide.” 560 U.S. at 82. The Graham Court explained that “[a] State is 

not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a 

nonhomicide crime,” but it must give such defendants “some meaningful opportunity to 

obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id. at 75; see also id. 

(“The Eighth Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons convicted of 

nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will remain behind bars for life,” but 

“[i]t does prohibit States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders 

never will be fit to reenter society”).

Two years later in Miller, the Court held that a juvenile offender convicted of 

homicide cannot receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole. It explained, “Such 

mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an 

offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it.” 

Miller, 567 U.S. at 476. The Court stated, moreover, that not only must “a judge or jury 

. . . have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the 

harshest possible penalty for juveniles,” id. at 489, but also the sentencer must actually

“take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against 

irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison,” id. at 480. The Court did not, 

however, adopt “a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles,” id. at 479, instead

reserving the possibility that such a severe sentence could be appropriately imposed on 

“the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,” id. at 479–80

(quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 573). 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 13 of 25
14

Finally, in 2016, the Court decided Montgomery, holding that Miller announced a 

new “substantive rule” of constitutional law that applies retroactively “to juvenile 

offenders whose convictions and sentences were final when Miller was decided.” 136 S. 

Ct. at 725, 732; see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989) (plurality opinion) 

(recognizing that a new rule of constitutional law applies retroactively only if it qualifies 

as a substantive rule or a watershed rule of criminal procedure). Articulating the Miller

rule, the Montgomery Court stated that “Miller requires that before sentencing a juvenile 

to life without parole, the sentencing judge [must] take into account ‘how children are 

different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a 

lifetime in prison.’” 136 S. Ct. at 733 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 480). It then stated:

Miller . . . did more than require a sentencer to consider a juvenile 

offender’s youth before imposing life without parole; it established that the 

penological justifications for life without parole collapse in light of the 

distinctive attributes of youth. Even if a court considers a child’s age 

before sentencing him or her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still 

violates the Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects unfortunate 

yet transient immaturity. Because Miller determined that sentencing a child 

to life without parole is excessive for all but the rare juvenile offender 

whose crime reflects irreparable corruption, it rendered life without parole 

an unconstitutional penalty for a class of defendants because of their status 

— that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity 

of youth. As a result, Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional 

law. Like other substantive rules, Miller is retroactive because it

necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant — here, the vast 

majority of juvenile offenders — faces a punishment that the law cannot 

impose upon him.

Id. at 734 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted); see also id. (“Before Miller, every juvenile convicted of a homicide offense 

could be sentenced to life without parole. After Miller, it will be the rare juvenile 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 14 of 25
15

offender who can receive that same sentence”). The Court explained further that Miller

contained both a substantive rule and a procedural component: “Miller’s substantive 

holding” was that “life without parole is an excessive sentence for children whose crimes 

reflect transient immaturity,” and its procedural component implementing the substantive 

rule requires “[a] hearing where youth and its attendant circumstances are considered as 

sentencing factors” in order to “separate those juveniles who may be sentenced to life 

without parole from those who may not.” Id. at 735 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

III

In this appeal, the Warden contends that notwithstanding this new Eighth 

Amendment jurisprudence governing the sentencing of juveniles, the district court erred 

in awarding habeas corpus relief to Malvo, giving three reasons in support of his 

contention. First, he argues that “Malvo has no entitlement to relief under Miller” 

because “Miller’s new rule explicitly applies to mandatory life-without-parole 

sentences,” whereas “the Virginia Supreme Court has conclusively held that Virginia 

does not impose mandatory sentences for any homicide offense” because judges retain 

the discretionary right to suspend sentences; second, that “Malvo received all that Miller

would entitle him to during his trial in Chesapeake [City]” and therefore is not entitled to 

resentencing in that jurisdiction; and finally, that “Malvo’s voluntary decision to enter 

into a plea agreement with stipulated sentences in Spotsylvania to eliminate the 

possibility of [the death penalty] waive[d] any claim he would have had under Miller” as

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 15 of 25
16

to the two life-without-parole sentences he received in that jurisdiction. We consider 

these arguments in turn. 

A

First, the Warden contends that because the Miller rule is limited to mandatory

sentences of life imprisonment without parole, it does not implicate Malvo’s sentences,

which were, under Virginia law, subject to the sentencing court’s discretion to suspend 

the sentence in whole or in part. He argues that because Malvo had the opportunity under 

Virginia law to request that his life sentences be suspended, he did not receive mandatory

life-without-parole sentences and therefore is not entitled to any relief under Miller. 

Responding to the district court’s conclusion that Montgomery clarified that the rule in 

Miller applies more broadly than only to mandatory life-without-parole sentences, the 

Warden contends that Miller itself did not sweep so broadly and that only the Miller rule 

applying to mandatory sentences was made retroactive in Montgomery. Indeed, he 

argues that the district court violated the rule established in Teague “by crafting a new 

rule of constitutional law based on Montgomery’s discussion of Miller and applying that 

new rule retroactively.” In other words, as the Warden argues, “the principles of finality 

discussed in Teague prohibit federal courts from expanding new rules of constitutional 

law beyond their holdings,” and “the correct approach is to recognize that . . . Miller’s 

new rule is defined by Miller itself, not Montgomery.” 

In response, Malvo contends that he did indeed receive mandatory life-withoutparole sentences within the meaning of Miller because Virginia law provided then and 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 16 of 25
17

still provides that when a jury declines to recommend the death penalty for a defendant 

convicted of capital murder, the defendant must be sentenced to life imprisonment 

without parole. See Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264.4(A); see also id. §§ 53.1-165.1, 53.1-

40.01. He asserts further that Virginia trial courts were not aware at the time of his 

sentencings in 2004 that they were empowered to suspend capital murder sentences. 

Finally, he argues that, in any event, the Miller rule is not limited to mandatory lifewithout-parole sentences but also applies, as noted in Montgomery, to all life-withoutparole sentences where the sentencing court did not resolve whether the juvenile offender

was “irretrievably corrupt” or whether his crimes reflected his “transient immaturity.”

As the Warden asserts, the Virginia Supreme Court has now twice recognized that 

Virginia trial courts have long had the authority to suspend life sentences in whole or in 

part even following a capital murder conviction — an interpretation of Virginia law that 

is, of course, binding here. See Jones v. Commonwealth (Jones II), 795 S.E.2d 705, 712 

(Va. 2017) (reaffirming the holding in Jones v. Commonwealth (Jones I), 763 S.E.2d 823, 

824–25 (Va. 2014) (holding that when a Virginia trial court sentenced a juvenile 

homicide offender for capital murder in 2001, it had the authority to suspend part or all of 

his life sentence)). But also, as Malvo asserts, it is far from clear that anyone involved in 

Malvo’s prosecutions actually understood at the time that Virginia trial courts retained 

their ordinary suspension authority following a conviction for capital murder. We need 

not, however, resolve whether any of Malvo’s sentences were mandatory because 

Montgomery has now made clear that Miller’s rule has applicability beyond those 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 17 of 25
18

situations in which a juvenile homicide offender received a mandatory life-withoutparole sentence. 

To be sure, all the penalty schemes before the Supreme Court in both Miller and 

Montgomery were mandatory. Yet the Montgomery Court confirmed that, even though

imposing a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender pursuant to a 

mandatory penalty scheme necessarily violates the Eighth Amendment as construed in 

Miller, a sentencing judge also violates Miller’s rule any time it imposes a discretionary

life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile homicide offender without first concluding that 

the offender’s “crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility,” as distinct from “the transient 

immaturity of youth.” Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 734. And we are not free to conclude, 

as the Warden argues, that Montgomery’s articulation of the Miller rule was mere dictum. 

To the contrary, Montgomery stated clearly that, under Miller, the Eighth Amendment 

bars life-without-parole sentences for all but those rare juvenile offenders whose crimes 

reflect permanent incorrigibility. Indeed, this scope was the basis for its holding that 

Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral 

review. See id. And because Montgomery explicitly articulated the rule in Miller that it 

was retroactively applying, the district court could not have violated Teague in applying 

that rule. The Warden may well critique the Supreme Court’s ruling in Montgomery —

as did Justice Scalia in dissent, see Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 743 (Scalia, J., dissenting) 

(“It is plain as day that the majority is not applying Miller, but rewriting it”) — but we 

are nonetheless bound by Montgomery’s statement of the Miller rule.

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 18 of 25
19

At bottom, we reject the Warden’s argument that Malvo “has no entitlement to 

relief under Miller” on the ground that Miller applies only to mandatory life-withoutparole sentences and instead conclude that Miller’s holding potentially applies to any 

case where a juvenile homicide offender was sentenced to life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole. 

B

The Warden next contends that even if Miller applies to discretionary life-withoutparole sentences, “Malvo received all that Miller would entitle him to during his trial in 

Chesapeake,” and thus the two life-without-parole sentences that he received in that 

proceeding must be permitted to stand. In advancing this argument, the Warden notes 

that “[o]ver the course of six weeks, the jury heard an enormous amount of mitigation 

evidence that was nearly all focused on [Malvo’s] youth, upbringing, and 

impressionability,” and that it also “heard from multiple expert witnesses who testified 

specifically about how Malvo’s age and upbringing affected his competency.” He argues 

further that “the trial court and the jury actually considered [Malvo’s mitigation] evidence 

in imposing the sentences in this case” and that “the jury’s finding of future 

dangerousness and vileness shows that Malvo is the ‘rare juvenile offender whose crime 

reflect[ed] irreparable corruption.’” Moreover, according to the Warden, the fact “[t]hat 

Malvo chose not to use the evidence he introduced to argue for a sentence less than life 

without parole does not change the fact that he had the opportunity to present the relevant 

evidence and argue for leniency, which is all that the Eighth Amendment requires.” 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 19 of 25
20

The problem with the Warden’s argument, however, is that, as a matter of Virginia 

law, the jury was not allowed to give a sentence less than life without parole. It was 

charged with deciding between the death penalty and life without parole, and it selected 

the more lenient of the two. Thus, even though the jury did find future dangerousness 

and vileness, as the Warden notes, it also considered Malvo’s mitigation evidence and 

found that he deserved the lighter of the two sentences that it could give — life without 

parole. 

Moreover, the Chesapeake City jury was never charged with finding whether 

Malvo’s crimes reflected irreparable corruption or permanent incorrigibility, a 

determination that is now a prerequisite to imposing a life-without-parole sentence on a 

juvenile homicide offender. Nor were Malvo’s “youth and attendant circumstances” 

considered by either the jury or the judge to determine whether to sentence him to life 

without parole or some lesser sentence. Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 735.

We thus conclude that Malvo’s sentencing proceedings in the Chesapeake City 

Circuit Court did not satisfy the requirements of the Eighth Amendment as articulated in 

Miller and Montgomery. 

C

Finally, the Warden contends that “Malvo’s voluntary decision to enter into a plea 

agreement with stipulated [life-without-parole] sentences in Spotsylvania . . . waive[d]

any claim he would have had under Miller” as to those two sentences. The Warden notes 

that “Malvo received a substantial benefit” in “avoid[ing] a second trial at which he could 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 20 of 25
21

have been sentenced to death” and contends that Malvo must therefore “be held to the 

terms of his bargain.” He cites Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), and Dingle 

v. Stevenson, 840 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2016), to argue that both the “Supreme Court and 

this Court have made clear that guilty pleas are not open to revision when future changes 

in the law alter the calculus that caused the defendant to enter his plea.” 

At the outset, we conclude that the resolution of this issue is not governed by 

Brady or Dingle. In Brady, the defendant pleaded guilty to a crime that carried the 

possibility of the death penalty in order to avoid that penalty, receiving instead a 50-year 

sentence of imprisonment (later reduced to 30 years). When the Supreme Court later

held that the death-penalty provision involved in Brady’s case was unconstitutional,

Brady sought to set aside his plea agreement as invalid. The Brady Court rejected 

Brady’s argument, noting that “even if we assume that Brady would not have pleaded 

guilty except for the death penalty provision . . . , this assumption merely identifies the 

penalty provision as a ‘but for’ cause of his plea,” but it “does not necessarily prove that 

the plea was coerced and invalid as an involuntary act.” 397 U.S. at 750. Rather, “a plea 

of guilty is not invalid merely because entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty,” 

even one subsequently invalidated. Id. at 755. 

In Dingle, we applied Brady to similar circumstances, concluding that a plea 

agreement could not be set aside as involuntary and invalid because it was entered into by

Dingle to avoid the death penalty when that penalty was later determined to be 

unconstitutional in the circumstances. We noted in Dingle that the Supreme Court had 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 21 of 25
22

“not suggested that a substantive rule would stretch beyond the proscribed sentence to 

reopen guilty pleas with a different sentence.” 840 F.3d at 174. 

Thus, in both Brady and Dingle, the defendants sought to use new sentencing case 

law to attack their convictions — their guilty pleas — without any claim that the 

sentences they actually received were unlawful. The question in both cases was thus

whether to set aside the guilty-plea convictions when the penalties that induced the pleas

were later found to be unconstitutional. In both cases that relief was denied, and the 

legality vel non of the avoided sentences was thus held not to cast doubt on the validity of

the guilty plea. In this case, by distinction, Malvo seeks to challenge his sentences, not 

his guilty-plea convictions, on the ground that they were retroactively made 

unconstitutional under the rule announced in Miller. Thus, whereas the defendants in 

Brady and Dingle sought to use new sentencing law as a sword to attack the validity of 

their guilty pleas, here the Warden seeks to use Malvo’s lawful guilty plea as a shield to 

insulate his allegedly unlawful life-without-parole sentences from judicial review. We 

conclude that Brady and Dingle do not provide him with that shield. 

Nonetheless, that brings us to the more formidable question of whether Malvo 

waived his constitutional challenge to his sentences by signing the plea agreement. 

In that agreement, Malvo agreed that Virginia’s summary of the facts could be 

proven in the case were it to go to trial, accepting that summary “in lieu of presentation of 

any evidence by the Commonwealth.” And, after expressly waiving his rights to a 

speedy and public trial by jury, to compel the production of evidence and attendance of 

witnesses, to have a lawyer, to not testify against himself, and to be confronted by his 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 22 of 25
23

accusers, he entered an Alford guilty plea and waived his right to an appeal. With respect 

to punishment, he stated in his plea agreement, “I understand that the Commonwealth’s 

Attorney has agreed that the following specific punishment is the appropriate disposition 

in this case”: “life in prison without parole” for the offenses of capital murder and 

attempted capital murder and a term of years for the other offenses. Finally, he 

acknowledged that “the Court [could] accept or reject this plea agreement.” It is 

noteworthy, however, that in the plea agreement, Malvo did not himself agree that lifewithout-parole sentences were appropriate punishments for his crimes. That is not to say, 

of course, that Malvo did not expect that he was avoiding the death penalty by receiving

life sentences without parole. See Va. S. Ct. Rule 3A:8(c)(1)(C).

To begin, it is far from clear that a broad waiver of a substantive constitutional 

right, as the Warden maintains happened here, would even be enforceable. See

Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 729, 734 (explaining that “[s]ubstantive rules . . . set forth 

categorical constitutional guarantees that place certain criminal laws and punishments 

altogether beyond the State’s power to impose” and that, “[l]ike other substantive rules, 

Miller is retroactive because it necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant —

here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders — faces a punishment that the law cannot 

impose upon him” (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks

omitted)); see also United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 220 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2005) 

(holding that, just as “a defendant may waive his right to appeal directly from his 

conviction and sentence,” he may also “waive his right to attack his conviction and 

sentence collaterally, so long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary,” but noting that 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 23 of 25
24

there is a “narrow class of claims that we have allowed a defendant to raise on direct 

appeal despite a general waiver of appellate rights,” including a claim that the “sentence 

imposed [was] in excess of the maximum penalty provided by statute,” and indicating 

that “we see no reason to distinguish between waivers of direct-appeal rights and waivers 

of collateral-attack rights”). 

But, in any event, the plea agreement in this case does not provide any form of

express waiver of Malvo’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence in a 

collateral proceeding in light of future Supreme Court holdings, nor was he advised 

during his plea colloquy that his Alford plea would have that effect. He did expressly 

waive constitutional rights relating to trial and his right to direct appeal, but nothing with 

respect to the right to pursue future habeas relief from his punishment. Consequently, the 

Warden’s waiver argument must rest on some form of inherent or implied waiver of his 

right to challenge his sentences as unconstitutional.

In the circumstances, we decline to hold that Malvo implicitly waived his right to 

argue, based on intervening Supreme Court holdings, that his sentences were ones that

the State could not constitutionally impose on him. Cf. Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 

798, 804–05 (2018) (explaining that while “a guilty plea does implicitly waive some 

claims, including some constitutional claims,” it “does not bar a claim on appeal ‘where 

on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the 

sentence’” (quoting United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989))). We thus 

conclude that, while Malvo’s convictions remain valid, nothing in his plea agreement 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 24 of 25
25

precludes him from obtaining habeas relief under the new rule in Miller. Accordingly,

we reject the Warden’s argument that Malvo waived his right to challenge his sentences.

IV

To be clear, the crimes committed by Malvo and John Muhammad were the most 

heinous, random acts of premeditated violence conceivable, destroying lives and families

and terrorizing the entire Washington, D.C. metropolitan area for over six weeks,

instilling mortal fear daily in the citizens of that community. The Commonwealth of 

Virginia understandably sought the harshest penalties then available under the law, and 

the Warden now understandably seeks to sustain the penalties that were then legally 

imposed with arguments that are not without substantial force. 

But Malvo was 17 years old when he committed the murders, and he now has the 

retroactive benefit of new constitutional rules that treat juveniles differently for 

sentencing. Because we are bound to apply those constitutional rules, we affirm the 

district court’s grant of habeas relief awarding Malvo new sentencings. We make this 

ruling not with any satisfaction but to sustain the law. As for Malvo, who knows but God 

how he will bear the future.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6758 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/21/2018 Pg: 25 of 25