Rule of McNeely is Not Retroactive on Collateral Review of Final Convictions

O’Connell v. State, Minn.Ct.App., 1/12/2015.  The state charged Mr. O’Connell with one count of driving while impaired after his urine tested positive for amphetamines.  After he lost his suppression motion he pled guilty.  After that conviction became final, Mr. O’Connell filed a post conviction petition asking to be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea and be granted a new trial because the trial court’s failure to suppress the urine test, obtained without a warrant or voluntary consent “compelled him to plead guilty.”  The post conviction court denied the petition and the court of appeals upholds that denial.

The court of appeals says that Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) does not apply retroactively on collateral review of a final conviction.  The court applied the retroactivity analysis from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) and concluded that the rule from McNeely is a new rule; McNeely announced a rule that was not “dictated” by precedent existing at the time the conviction under attack became final.  Such a new rule applies retroactively to final convictions only if the rule is a watershed rule of criminal procedure.