Com. v. Hare, L.
792 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- In 1979, Lewis Jerry Hare was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole; he was 19 at the time of the offense.
- Hare filed a third PCRA petition challenging the constitutionality of his mandatory life-without-parole sentence under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Hare relied on Miller v. Alabama (2012) (prohibiting mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders) and the Supreme Court’s retroactivity decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).
- The PCRA court dismissed Hare’s untimely petition; Hare appealed pro se to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
- The Superior Court considered whether Miller/Montgomery entitled Hare (age 19 at offense) to relief or to an extension of Miller based on neuroscientific arguments about maturation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller v. Alabama invalidates Hare’s mandatory LWOP | Hare: Miller bars mandatory LWOP for youthful offenders; applies to his case | Commonwealth: Miller applies only to offenders under 18 at offense | Held: Miller inapplicable—Hare was 19, so no relief |
| Whether Miller is retroactively applicable via Montgomery | Hare: Montgomery makes Miller retroactive on collateral review | Commonwealth: Montgomery retroactivity applies but only to those under 18 per Miller | Held: Montgomery is retroactive, but still limited to under-18 offenders |
| Whether Miller should be extended based on brain science or older age cutoff (e.g., 25) | Hare: Neuroscience shows maturity develops into mid-20s; Miller should extend to 19–25-year-olds | Commonwealth: Scientific maturity arguments do not expand Miller’s age-limited holding | Held: Court refused to extend Miller; denied relief for offenders over 18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for those under 18 at offense violates Eighth Amendment; sentencing must allow consideration of mitigating factors)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (court noted Supreme Court draws categorical age lines; subjective maturity does not alter age cutoff)