Whether a new substantive rule of constitutional law must be applied retroactively to final cases

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In 2017, Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), was decided and it was held that "when a new substantive rule of constitutional law controls the outcome of a case, the [Federal] Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to that rule." Relying on Montgomery, the Petitioner sought state habeas corpus relief alleging that the decision in State v. Ronald-Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (2011), is a substantive rule that controls the outcome of his case because, under Ronald-Smith, Nebraska's statute for murder in the second degree~-the statute of his conviction, is unconstitutional, and thus, it applied retroactively to his already final case. The Nebraska appellate courts, relying on State v. Glass, 298 Neb. 598 (2018)(holding that Ronald-Smith was a procedural rule), denied habeas corpus relief. The questions to this Court are: 1. Is the decision announced in State v. Ronald-Smith, a new susbtantive rule of law that the Federal Constitution requires to be applied retroactively to already final cases before that decision was decided? 2. Is a federal and state defendant, whose conviction is final, permitted ; . by the Federal Constitution and holdings of this Court to attack at any time that the statute of his conviction is unconstitutional without being subjected to waivers or procedural bars? A split exists between Federal and State Courts. 3. Is, after the decision in State v. Ronald-Smith, Nebraska's statute for murder in the second degree compatible with the Constitution's prohibition of vague criminal laws? . : i .