Com. v. Moye, D.
224 A.3d 48
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In January 2015, 16-year-old Deauntay Moye (two weeks shy of 17) and a juvenile co-defendant planned to buy marijuana; Moye shot Stephanie Walters in the head during the transaction; Moye pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and related offenses.
- At initial sentencing the court imposed life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) on the homicide count; concurrent terms on other counts.
- While Moye’s direct appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Batts (Batts II), applying Miller and Montgomery and creating a presumption against juvenile LWOP that the Commonwealth must rebut beyond a reasonable doubt.
- On resentencing the Commonwealth offered only a victim-impact statement and presented no expert evidence; Moye presented Dr. Bruce Wright, a forensic psychiatrist, who opined rehabilitation was possible with maturation and treatment.
- The trial court found Moye permanently incorrigible beyond a reasonable doubt and reimposed LWOP; the Superior Court vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding the Commonwealth failed to rebut the presumption and the court inadequately considered rehabilitative evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Moye's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Moye is permanently incorrigible and unable to be rehabilitated | The trial court’s findings and statutory factors justify a conclusion of permanent incorrigibility based largely on the offense and background | Dr. Wright’s credible expert opinion and Moye’s institutional progress show rehabilitation is possible; presumption against LWOP not rebutted | Vacated LWOP: Commonwealth failed to rebut the Batts II presumption; no expert evidence was presented for incorrigibility, and record supports potential for rehabilitation |
| Whether the sentencing court appropriately considered Miller factors and provided meaningful hope of parole | The court considered statutory and offense-related factors and permissibly relied on the crime’s gravity | Sentencing overly focused on crime’s nature and failed to give adequate weight to youth-related Miller factors and positive prognostic indicators | Court erred: sentencing court overly emphasized the crime and did not adequately account for Miller factors or rehabilitative prospects; resentencing required to provide meaningful opportunity for release |
| Whether LWOP for a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment and Pennsylvania constitutional protections as applied | Batts II permits LWOP only when Commonwealth proves irretrievable depravity; here the court’s legal conclusion was proper | LWOP as applied violated Eighth Amendment because juvenile characteristics and potential for reform were not properly weighed | Held that LWOP was disproportionate under Miller/Montgomery/Batts II given the record; thus unconstitutional as applied and unlawful |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by ignoring mitigating evidence and expert testimony | The court gave weight to defendant’s history, criminal sophistication, and offense circumstances | The court disregarded positive indicators and Dr. Wright’s credible opinion that rehabilitation is possible | Held abuse of discretion as to legal conclusion: court accepted the expert’s credibility but failed to give legal effect to that evidence in concluding permanent incorrigibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles have diminished culpability and different penological considerations)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (limitations on LWOP for juveniles; need to account for youth characteristics)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing considering youth)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive, retroactive rule; LWOP only for rare permanently incorrigible juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (Batts II) (creates presumption against juvenile LWOP; Commonwealth must prove permanent incorrigibility beyond a reasonable doubt)