Court Opinion

ID: 7921208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 22:23:00.348425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:04.279396
License: Public Domain

McDONALD, J.,
concurring.
I will explain why I join neither of the thoughtful opinions in this case, although it may simply reveal my own ignorance in this arena. I agree with the result reached by the Majority opinion, but do not follow its reasoning — it says it is not applying the Teague standard for retroactivity, but is compelled to follow the result in Chaidez, which was based on the Teague standard. The Dissent points that out and states quite clearly that it believes a different standard set forth in this Court’s Daughtry case should be applied. But I do not grasp the distinction that the Dissent makes between the Daughtry standard and the Teague standard in reference to this case, particularly in that the Dissent relies on Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Chaidez — a dissent that applied the Teague standard.
In the end, I find Justice Kagan’s analysis for the Chaidez majority persuasive and would apply it here, whether one views it an application of the Teague standard or another standard that operates similarly. That brings me to the same place as the Majority.
BARBERA, C.J., GREENE, J., and BELL, C.J., (ret.) dissent.