Com. v. Romanelli, A., Com. v. Romanelli, A. No. 2114 EDA 2015

Anthony M. Romanelli, who was 17 at the time of the offenses, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and related offenses in 2006.
In 2007 he was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for the murder and a consecutive 10–20 year term for conspiracy; the LWOP sentence was mandatory at that time.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated his LWOP sentence in 2013 and remanded for resentencing under Batts I principles.
At a May 29, 2015 resentencing hearing the trial court again imposed LWOP for the murder; Romanelli appealed.
The Superior Court reviewed the resentencing in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Batts II and determined the trial court failed to apply Batts II’s procedural safeguards (presumption against LWOP, Commonwealth’s burden to prove permanent incorrigibility beyond a reasonable doubt, and notice requirement).
The Superior Court vacated Romanelli’s judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with Batts II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is LWOP for a juvenile convicted of 2nd-degree murder constitutional?	Commonwealth defends imposition of LWOP given facts and prior law.	Romanelli argues LWOP is unconstitutional for juveniles without finding permanent incorrigibility.	Court did not decide facial constitutionality here (left for future); remanded on procedural grounds.
Must court apply a presumption against LWOP for juveniles at resentencing?	Commonwealth implicitly argued no presumption necessary under prior Batts I practice.	Romanelli argued Batts II requires a presumption against LWOP.	Court held Batts II requires a presumption against LWOP; trial court failed to apply it.
Who bears burden to rebut presumption and what standard?	Commonwealth must rebut if presumption applies.	Romanelli argued Commonwealth must prove permanent incorrigibility beyond a reasonable doubt.	Court affirmed Batts II: Commonwealth bears burden to prove permanent incorrigibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is expert testimony required to meet Commonwealth’s burden?	Commonwealth can present evidence (likely including experts).	Romanelli did not require experts but relied on Batts II safeguards.	Court noted Batts II did not mandate experts but observed they will likely be necessary in practice; remand required for proper procedures.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile mandatory LWOP sentencing violates Eighth Amendment)
Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Batts I) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court guidance on juvenile LWOP resentencing)