Commonwealth v. Melvin
172 A.3d 14
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2003, then-16-year-old Jeremy Melvin participated in an escape plan at a youth facility; he placed a staff member in a chokehold, the staffer was gagged and suffocated, and Melvin pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2004.
- Melvin was originally sentenced in 2005 to life without parole (LWOP) and did not pursue a direct appeal; he later filed multiple PCRA petitions.
- After Miller v. Alabama and related Pennsylvania decisions, Melvin obtained vacatur of his LWOP sentence and was resentenced in August 2016 to 30 years to life.
- The PCRA court denied post-sentence relief; Melvin appealed, raising challenges to the legality of the resentencing, use of sentencing guidelines, denial of funds for an expert, and admission of victim-impact/character testimony.
- The Superior Court considered intervening Pennsylvania Supreme Court authority (Batts I and Batts II) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Miller, Montgomery) in reviewing whether the term-of-years-to-life sentence and the PCRA court’s procedures were lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Melvin) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of resentencing authority / imposition of term-of-years with life maximum | PCRA court had no statutory authority to impose a term-of-years with life max; only lesser included (third-degree / robbery) was legal for pre-2012 offense | Batts I/II authorize resentencing juveniles convicted pre-Miller to a minimum term-of-years and max of life (parole eligibility after min) | Court held sentence lawful under Batts decisions; 30-to-life not illegal |
| Required conviction or resentencing to lesser included offense | Melvin: because offense pre-dates Miller rules, only third-degree murder maximum (40 years) or underlying felony is permissible | Batts II rejected that theory and permits minimum term-of-years with life maximum upon resentencing pre-Miller juvenile offenders | Held against Melvin; resentencing to 30-to-life permissible |
| Application of post-2012 juvenile sentencing guidelines / ex post facto claim | Melvin: guidelines (303.16(b)) for post-6/24/2012 juvenile homicides should apply; ex post facto bars using new matrix otherwise | Commonwealth/PCRA: 303.16(b) applies only to offenses after 6/24/2012; Batts II directs courts to use 1102.1 as guidance for minimums on pre-Miller cases | Court agreed trial court misapplied ex post facto analysis but found no remand required; 30-to-life consistent with 1102.1 and Batts II |
| Denial of funds for expert for resentencing | Melvin: denial prevented him from presenting Miller factors and rebutting LWOP presumption effectively | Commonwealth/PCRA: funding for experts is discretionary; expert testimony is not constitutionally required in every case; court provided appointed experts | Court found no abuse of discretion; issue moot because court declined to impose LWOP and Melvin received court-appointed resources |
| Admission of victim-impact and character evidence at resentencing | Melvin: witnesses who were not statutory "victims" testified and opinion testimony about victim’s character was improper under Rule 405 | Commonwealth/PCRA: sentencing courts have broad latitude to consider community impact and such witnesses were subject to cross-examination; testimony was impact/context not improper character proof | Court affirmed admission; testimony within sentencing scope and any limited character remarks did not affect sentence or violate evidentiary rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule made retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Batts I) (Miller requires individualized consideration before imposing LWOP on juveniles; resentencing framework for pre-Miller offenders)
- 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; directs use of 1102.1 guidance for minimums)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing guidelines inform but do not bind sentencing court)
- Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court has discretion to allocate public funds for expert assistance; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)