Commonwealth v. Shabazz-Davis
2017 Pa. Super. 138
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On May 28, 2012, 16-year-old Robert Shabazz‑Davis (turned 17 shortly after) shot and killed Antwan Pack in a laundromat; multiple eyewitnesses and hospital statements implicated “Rob.”
- Ballistics evidence recovered at the scene indicated all shots came from the same firearm; that firearm was later recovered on July 13, 2012 from Daquan Johnson.
- Appellant was arrested January 28, 2013 after months at large and was convicted of first‑degree murder and unlicensed firearm possession.
- At sentencing (March 13, 2015) the trial court imposed life without parole (LWOP) plus a consecutive 3½–7 year term after conducting presentence and mental‑health evaluations and considering Batts/Miller factors.
- Appellant sought relief on multiple grounds on appeal, chiefly that imposition of LWOP violated Miller and related Pennsylvania authority and that the Commonwealth violated Brady by late disclosure of evidence; some constitutional issues were found waived for failure to preserve.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of juvenile LWOP under Miller/Batts | Miller prohibits mandatory juvenile LWOP and requires individualized consideration; appellant argues sentence unlawful absent findings and safeguards | Trial court complied with Miller/Batts: ordered evaluations, considered age‑related mitigating factors and found this a rare case warranting LWOP | Affirmed — court found sentencing court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion; LWOP lawful here |
| Request to create procedural safeguards (presumption against LWOP, expert testimony, beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard) | Appellant urges this Court to adopt additional procedural rules to make juvenile LWOP uncommon | Commonwealth: such policy changes are for Supreme Court/legislature; issue pending in Batts III and was not preserved below | Waived — appellant failed to preserve these claims; court declined to address policy creation |
| Due process comparison to capital sentencing / heightened procedural protections | Appellant contends juvenile LWOP resentencings should receive procedural protections similar to capital cases | Commonwealth argues existing Miller/Batts framework governs and no expansion is required absent Supreme Court/legislative directive | Waived — not preserved below and duplicative of issues before Pa. Supreme Court in Batts III |
| Brady claim (late disclosure re: Johnson and Pough) | Commonwealth suppressed exculpatory/impeachment evidence (weapon recovered from Johnson; Pough’s statements), prejudicing defense; seeks dismissal | Commonwealth contends disclosures or avenues to discover records were available earlier and evidence was immaterial given eyewitness IDs and overwhelming guilt evidence | Denied — court found no Brady violation: evidence immaterial to guilt and appellant failed to show unavoidable prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; requires individualized consideration)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile sentencing principles informing Miller; life without parole for nonhomicide juveniles unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 620 Pa. 115, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (remanded juvenile LWOP cases for individualized consideration under Miller)
- Commonwealth v. Batts, 135 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2016) (Pa. Supreme Court granted further review on procedural safeguards in juvenile LWOP cases)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (identifies age‑related factors appropriate for consideration in juvenile LWOP resentencing)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)