Commonwealth v. Lekka, 210 A.3d 343

Background

In 1978, 17-year-old John Lekka and co-defendant Robert Buli brutally murdered 17-year-old Diana Goeke; Lekka was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in 1979.
Lekka served decades in prison and sought post-conviction relief; after Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, his mandatory life-without-parole sentence was vacated and he was remanded for resentencing.
At a multi-day resentencing in October 2017 the court imposed 45 years to life (credit for time served), concurrent to an earlier 5–10 year conspiracy term; the court also ordered $1,000 restitution for funeral expenses.
Lekka sought to introduce an exhibit (D-1) summarizing resentencings of 120 juvenile homicide offenders to argue disparity and uniformity; the court denied admission at the reconsideration hearing.
On appeal Lekka raised challenges to the discretionary aspects of the 45-to-life sentence, the court’s failure to apply Miller factors, whether the term was a de facto life sentence, the exclusion of Exhibit D-1, and the legality of the restitution order.
The Superior Court vacated the restitution award and affirmed the sentence in all other respects.

Issues

Issue	Lekka's Argument	Commonwealth / Sentencing Court Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by imposing 45-to-life when Batts II suggested 35-year minimum guidance	Sentence was 10 years above the Batts II/§1102.1 suggested starting point without explanation	Court followed Batts II guidance, considered §9721(b) factors, and was not required to recite exact reasons for deviating from the 35-year guide	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed
Whether court improperly discounted rehabilitation and overemphasized lack of insight	Lekka argued extensive rehabilitation, low recidivism risk, and exemplary prison record warranted lesser term	Sentencing court considered rehabilitation but gave weight to brutal facts and Lekka’s lack of true insight; balancing is for trial court	No reversible error; sentencing court reasonably weighed §9721(b) factors
Whether exclusion of Exhibit D-1 (comparative resentencings) was erroneous	Exhibit showed disparity and promoted uniformity; relevant to resentencing	Exhibit was not tied to individualized factors (offense/defendant details) and could have been offered earlier; relevancy and timing justified exclusion	No abuse of discretion in excluding Exhibit D-1
Whether restitution order of $1,000 was lawful without Commonwealth request or evidentiary support	Restitution improper because not requested originally or at resentencing and amount unsupported	Commonwealth conceded award was improper	Restitution vacated as illegal; remainder of sentence affirmed
Whether Miller factors had to be considered at resentencing where Commonwealth withdrew notice to seek LWOP	Lekka: Miller factors mandatory whenever LWOP was statutorily possible for pre-Miller convictions	Court relied on Batts II and White: Miller factors required only when Commonwealth seeks LWOP; here Commonwealth withdrew LWOP notice	No error—Miller factors not required in this resentencing because LWOP was not sought
Whether 45-to-life is a de facto LWOP sentence	Lekka relied on life expectancy data and argued no meaningful chance of release	Precedent (Bebout, Foust) rejects bright-line and requires plausibility of surviving to earliest parole date; no workable standard shown to deem this de facto LWOP	45-to-life not de facto LWOP on these facts; claim rejected

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment and requires consideration of youth-related factors)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule made retroactive on collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410 (Pa. 2017) (Batts II) (sentencing courts should look to §1102.1 minima for guidance and apply §9721(b) where LWOP is not sought)
Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Miller factors need only be considered when Commonwealth seeks LWOP)
Commonwealth v. Bebout, 186 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2018) (45-to-life sentence not necessarily de facto LWOP; must be plausible defendant could survive to parole eligibility)
Commonwealth v. Foust, 180 A.3d 416 (Pa. Super. 2018) (declined to adopt bright-line rule for when term-of-years equals de facto LWOP)