Com. v. Marinucci, A.
1758 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 17, 2016Background
- Angela Marinucci, a juvenile (17½ at the time), was convicted in 2011 of multiple counts including first-degree murder for the brutal torture and killing of Jennifer Daugherty; originally sentenced to life without parole.
- The Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under Miller v. Alabama and Pennsylvania authorities; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allowance of appeal.
- On remand (July 1, 2015) the trial court again sentenced Marinucci to life without parole; she filed post-sentence motions and appealed.
- Marinucci raised four principal challenges on resentencing: (1) that Batts I requires a minimum/maximum range (i.e., not LWOP) for pre-Miller juveniles; (2) trial court abused discretion / was biased and failed to give weight to evidence of rehabilitation; (3) a sentencing jury was required under Apprendi/Alleyne line; and (4) LWOP for juveniles is categorically unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and PA Const. art. I, §13.
- The Superior Court rejected all claims: it declined to overrule prior Superior-panel decisions (Batts II), found discretionary-appeal procedural defects waived Marinucci’s sentencing-abuse argument, held empaneling a sentencing jury in non-capital cases is unauthorized, and concluded LWOP for juveniles remains permissible if Miller factors were considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marinucci) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of LWOP for pre-Miller juvenile under Batts I | Batts I requires juvenile resentencing to impose a range (min + max), not LWOP; trial court’s LWOP is illegal | Batts II and controlling Superior precedent permit LWOP after individualized Miller consideration; Batts I did not categorically prohibit LWOP | Held: Rejected Marinucci; claim foreclosed by Superior precedent (Batts II); sentence lawful under current law |
| Abuse of discretion / judicial bias at resentencing | Trial court ignored evidence of maturation/rehabilitation, unduly credited one expert, and exhibited bias (comments about trauma) | Court considered Miller factors, expert testimony, pre-sentence report; inquiry into possible malingering was justified; mitigation considered | Held: Procedurally barred on appeal for lacking Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); alternatively, trial court did not abuse discretion based on record |
| Right to sentencing jury in non-capital case | Apprendi/Blakely/Alleyne + Miller imply jury must find facts that could increase a juvenile’s sentence beyond statutory baseline | Pennsylvania law provides jury sentencing only in capital cases (42 Pa.C.S. §9711); courts cannot create a new jury-sentencing procedure; Apprendi/Alleyne do not require a sentencing jury for discretionary sentences | Held: Denied; empaneling a sentencing jury in a non-capital case is impermissible and unnecessary |
| Categorical Eighth Amendment challenge to LWOP for juveniles | Evolving Eighth Amendment jurisprudence supports treating juveniles differently; LWOP for juveniles should be categorically unconstitutional | Supreme Court (Miller) declined to categorically bar LWOP; Pennsylvania precedent likewise permits LWOP if Miller factors are considered | Held: Rejected; LWOP for juveniles is not per se unconstitutional under current Supreme Court and Pennsylvania law if individualized consideration occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth-related mitigating factors)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Miller requires individualized consideration; did not categorically bar LWOP for pre-Miller juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 125 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Batts II) (Superior Court panel clarifying Batts and refusing to categorically prohibit LWOP for pre-Miller juveniles)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements that must be found by a jury)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (categorical bar on LWOP for juveniles for non-homicide offenses)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2012) (application of Miller factors in Pennsylvania resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (listing age-related factors from Miller to guide sentencing)