Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision not to hold State v. Ronald-Smith retroactive confines the petitioner to a lesser remedy than what the U.S. Constitution and Teague v. Lane demand

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2011, nine years after Petitioner’s convictions for second ‘degree murder became final, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided State _v. Ronald-Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (Neb. 2011). In Ronald-Smith, it was a held that Nebraska’s offense of manslaughter, when committed upon a sudden quarrel provocation, is an intentional offense same as second degree murder; thus when there is evidence of a sudden quarrel provocation, in order to obtain a conviction for second degree murder, the State, by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, must prove the lack of a sudden quarrel provocation, an essential element of second degree murder. Petitioner’s case squarely fits within Ronald-Smith’s definition of the law because the State’s own evidence provides that the killing, although intentional, was the result of a sudden quarrel provocation, and the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the intentional offense without a sudden quarrel. ; Nebraska’s collateral review proceeding is only available if a ; decision of.the Nebraska Supreme Court is held to be a new rule of : constitutional law and’ retroactive to cases on collateral review. Neb. : Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4) (d). Applying the Federal Retroactivity Test, : the Nebraska Supreme. Held that Ronald-Smith provides a new procedural rule not retroactive to cases on collateral review. State v. Glass, : 298 Neb. '598 (Neb. 2018). The retroactivity of Ronald-Smith is not at issué in Petitioners case, because the rule of law in Ronald-Smith a was, the correct statement of the law when petitioner’s conviction became final. Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225 (2001). Even so, the . decision not hold Ronald-Smith retroactive to cases on collateral review is-in conflict with Federal law and it is thus reviewable by this. Court, because it confines petitioner to a lesser remedy than "what the U:S. Constitution and Teague command. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 287 (2008). : : Petitioner respect fully-asks the Court to grant review on the _ _' following questions?’ oe ~ 1. Whether, the Nebraska Supreme Court’s decision not to hold Ronald-Smith retroactive to cases on collateral review confines petitioner to a lesser remedy than what the U.S. Constitution and Teague v. Lane demand, where;-as here, that Court employed the Federal ; Retroactivity Test? . : : 2. Whether the Federal Constitution requires that Petitioner’s ‘convictions and sentences be set aside in light of State v. Ronald. . Smith? — . . ; . . . F