201 A.3d 1279
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In 1988, Michael A. Lehman (age 14) acted as a lookout while peers stabbed and killed a staff member at a children’s home; he was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses.
- In 1990 Lehman received a mandatory life sentence without parole under then-applicable Pennsylvania law.
- Lehman filed multiple PCRA petitions over the years; after Miller v. Alabama and the U.S. Supreme Court’s later retroactivity ruling in Montgomery, federal court granted habeas relief and ordered resentencing.
- On April 4, 2017 the trial court resentenced Lehman to 30 years to life and ordered him to pay $15,150.28 in costs tied largely to expert services used at the resentencing.
- Lehman appealed, challenging (1) authority to resentence for first-degree murder, (2) legality of the 30-to-life term, and (3) the trial court’s authority to impose costs for resentencing occasioned by the earlier illegal sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lehman) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing followed PCRA or federal habeas | Lehman: relief resulted from federal habeas, not PCRA | Commonwealth: procedural posture immaterial to resentencing | Moot and not determinative; court declines to decide |
| Legality of sentencing him for first-degree murder after Miller | Lehman: statutes on which original life sentence relied were invalid, so trial court lacked authority to sentence for 1st-degree murder; must be discharged or reduced | Commonwealth: existing Pennsylvania precedent requires courts to resentence on convicted offense (1st-degree murder) without mandatory life | Held: Sentencing to 30 years to life for 1st-degree murder is lawful; trial court had authority |
| Legality of imposing mandatory life maximum after Miller | Lehman: (overlaps prior) mandatory life is impermissible | Commonwealth: trial court has discretion within permissible range | Held: Trial court’s 30-to-life sentence is legal (no mandatory minimum applicable here) |
| Authority to impose costs for resentencing necessitated by prior illegal sentence | Lehman: costs of resentencing caused solely by constitutional evolution; imposing them punishes defendant for exercising rights — unlawful | Commonwealth: costs are discretionary aspects of sentence and recoverable | Held: Trial court lacked authority to impose costs arising from resentencing necessitated by prior illegal sentence; costs vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders unconstitutional)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller applies retroactively)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (state precedent holding resentencing on convicted offense permissible after Miller)
- Commonwealth v. Weaver, 76 A.3d 562 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defendant not liable for costs of retrial caused by prosecution; analogous principle applied to resentencing costs)
- Commonwealth v. Coder, 415 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1980) (defendant may bear costs foreseeable from his own conduct; prosecution-caused costs should be borne by Commonwealth)