Com. v. Street, L.
952 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- On May 22, 2009, Lamon Street (then 17 years, 11 months) allegedly shot into a group on Alpine Street, killing Shavaughn Wallace and her unborn child; eyewitness Sofion Moore identified Street and a co-defendant Dwayne Johnson testified Street admitted the shooting.
- Street was convicted after a non-jury trial of first‑degree murder and related offenses and originally sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). This court affirmed convictions but vacated sentence and remanded for Miller/Batts-compliant resentencing.
- Before resentencing Street moved for a new trial based on after‑discovered witness Sir John Withrow, who said the shooter was not Street; the court held a hearing, found Withrow not credible and denied the motion.
- At resentencing the court received mitigation evidence including forensic psychological testimony regarding Street’s age, family background, trauma exposure, juvenile records, and rehabilitative potential, plus Commonwealth psychiatric testimony highlighting persistent criminality and limited insight.
- The trial court reimposed LWOP after expressly considering the Miller/Batts age‑related factors and victim impact testimony; Street appealed raising (1) illegality of LWOP sentence, (2) abuse of discretion in weighing mitigation, and (3) denial of new trial based on after‑discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Street) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of LWOP on resentencing | Batts II required imposition of a minimum (life with parole) when initial direct appeal was pending at Miller’s issuance | Batts II does not categorically forbid juvenile LWOP on resentencing; Miller requires individualized consideration but not a mandatory minimum | Court rejected Street’s reading of Batts II and held LWOP lawful when trial court properly considers Miller factors |
| Discretionary‑aspects of sentence (weighting mitigation) | Court gave undue weight to crime seriousness and failed to adequately account for Miller age‑related mitigating factors and rehabilitation potential | Trial court considered all required factors and reasonably concluded LWOP appropriate given facts and history | Court found no abuse of discretion; sentencing judge properly considered Miller factors and acted within discretion |
| New trial — after‑discovered witness Withrow | Withrow’s testimony could not have been found earlier, was not cumulative, and would likely change verdict (identifies different shooter) | Trial court found Withrow not credible; testimony would be cumulative to cousin Terrchell Little and would not overcome eyewitness ID and inculpatory admissions | Court upheld denial of new trial as trial court credibility findings reasonable and evidence unlikely to change verdict |
| Standard of review for juvenile LWOP | (Implicit) may require heightened scrutiny | Appellate courts should apply abuse‑of‑discretion standard unless supreme court dictates otherwise | Court applied deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard pending higher court direction |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory juvenile LWOP unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing consideration of youth-related factors)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Miller mandates age‑related consideration on resentencing juvenile LWOP cases)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 125 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Batts III) (Pa. Superior Court: Batts II does not categorically require a minimum term; juvenile LWOP still permissible after individualized consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Street, 69 A.3d 628 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior appeal: affirmed convictions, vacated sentence and remanded for Miller/Batts-compliant resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review—questions of law on sentence legality reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (standards for relief on after‑discovered evidence)