Walker v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed dismissal of Walker’s third postconviction motion because he did not plead either qualifying new evidence or a retroactively applicable new constitutional rule as required for a successive motion. The Court also concluded that Walker’s lengthy sentence was not equivalent to life without parole because he would be eligible for release while still substantially below the national life expectancy. The Court did not reach the ineffective-assistance claim on the merits because the successive-motion bar applied.