Com. v. Brown, C.
546 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 2008 a jury convicted Chaiz Edward Brown of second-degree murder and related firearms and robbery offenses for a November 21, 2005 shooting; he was 17 at the time.
- Brown was originally sentenced in 2008 to life without parole for murder (mandatory at the time) plus a consecutive 10–20 year term; prior appeals followed.
- After Miller v. Alabama, Brown filed PCRA relief; this Court previously reversed and remanded for resentencing under Miller’s juvenile-sentencing principles.
- At resentencing in November 2016 the trial court imposed 40 years to life on the second-degree murder conviction (no additional penalties on remaining convictions), a sentence near the bottom of the standard guideline range.
- Brown filed post-sentence motions claiming the 40-to-life term was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating evidence of his remorse, rehabilitation, and expert reports; he also argued the court misapplied 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court considered mitigation and properly exercised discretion; the court also concluded § 1102.1 was not applied at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Trial Ct./Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 40-years-to-life resentencing was manifestly excessive / court failed to consider mitigating factors | Sentence excessive given Brown’s remorse, rehabilitation, youth at offense, expert reports, and time already served; court should have imposed less than 40 years to life | Court considered mitigation, expert testimony, youth, and guideline ranges; 40-to-life is within standard-range and near its bottom | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court adequately considered mitigation and imposed a fair, standard-range sentence |
| Whether trial court misapplied 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1 (mandatory 30-to-life minimum for certain juvenile second-degree murderers) | Trial court’s Rule 1925(a) mentioned § 1102.1, implying the mandatory minimum should apply | Sentencing transcript shows the court expressly stated the Crimes Code mandatory scheme did not apply due to the timing of the homicide; § 1102.1 was not used at sentencing | Affirmed — § 1102.1 was not applied at resentencing; any mistaken reference in the opinion did not affect the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 45 A.3d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for reviewing legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four-part analysis for addressing discretionary-aspect sentencing claims)