Com. v. Hamrick, D., 1821 EDA 2021

Darnell Hamrick, age 16 at the time, was convicted of first-degree murder and originally sentenced to mandatory life without parole in 2009.
His LWOP sentence was vacated under Miller v. Alabama; he was resentenced on August 2, 2021 to 22½ years to life.
The resentencing record included a Mitigation Report/PSI and a forensic interview documenting a troubled family background, mental-health history, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated.
The court also relied on Hamrick’s institutional record: over fifty misconducts during roughly twelve years of confinement, some as recent as 2018.
The Commonwealth recommended 17 years to life in part based on trial-era assertions that the victim had robbed Hamrick the night before the murder; at resentencing Hamrick admitted uncertainty about that claim and described the killing as a “neighborhood thing.”
Hamrick appealed the discretionary aspects of the new sentence, arguing the court ignored mitigating factors, pre-judged his credibility, and improperly deviated from the Commonwealth’s recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hamrick)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court)	Held
Whether the court relied solely on retribution and ignored mitigating factors (background, rehabilitation, victim’s family forgiveness, low juvenile recidivism)	Court focused on retribution and ignored his “rotten” background and rehabilitation potential	Court considered the full record (mitigation, family testimony, allocution, prison conduct) and balanced factors including seriousness, public protection, and rehabilitation	Court rejected claim; although a substantial question was raised, record shows the court considered mitigation and did not abuse discretion; sentence affirmed
Whether the court pre-judged Hamrick’s credibility and conducted a foregone, biased hearing	Judge deemed him non-credible before speaking, belittled lack of disciplinary infractions, showed ill will	Allegations are bald and unsupported by the record; no transcript support for bias claim	No substantial question; claim dismissed for lack of record support
Whether the court improperly deviated from Commonwealth’s 17-to-life recommendation and intruded into adversarial process	Deviation from recommendation was unjustified and an unwarranted intrusion	Sentencing court is not bound by Commonwealth recommendations and explained its consideration of mitigating and aggravating evidence	No substantial question; court may reject recommendation; deviation alone is not an abuse of discretion

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory LWOP for juveniles)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for discretionary-sentencing challenges and appellate review of substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 960 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. 2008) (claim that court focused solely on offense raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (pre-sentence reports are presumed reviewed and considered by sentencing court)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate review of sentencing for abuse of discretion; sentencing court best positioned to weigh individual factors)
Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2018) (bare assertions of bias or error without record support do not raise a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 1991) (trial court not bound by prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation)