In re Funches, Arthur; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 43263.

L Denied. The decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) does not apply retroac*1166tively in relator’s case. See State v. Tate, 12-2763 (La.11/5/13), 130 So.3d 829, cert. denied, Tate v. Louisiana, No. 13-8915, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2663, 189 L.Ed.2d 214, 2014 WL 834279 (May 27, 2014).

dissents and would grant the writ.

hi respectfully dissent. On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Miller v. Alabama, which held “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). In State v. Tate, 2012-2763 (La.11/5/13), 130 So.3d 829, this court held that Miller does not retroactively apply to juvenile offenders whose life sentences were handed down before the Supreme Court issued its opinion. I dissented from this court’s ruling in Tate, finding that Miller announced a new rule of criminal procedure that is substantive and consequently should apply retroactively. For the same reasons expressed in my dissent in Tate, I must dissent in this case.