*1
private company,
agency.
of the discussion of the Lukes
not an
pri-
terms
decision,
not find it
to consid vate company
we do
useful
disburses the funds —the
public
agency
at which
point
er the downstream
does not. While the entire scheme
payment
into
funding
private
immediately suggests
transforms
monies. of
bureau-
Rather,
obfuscation,
focus
our con
upon
remains
cratic confusion and
plain
required
clusion
language
that records which were
RTKL
not
does
cover
DPW,
by
approved
should,
be submitted
perhaps it
but as it cur-
situation —
reflect
central means of
rently exists,
and which
in my
it
judgment
not.
does
departmental
func
implementing
core
I
would remand the matter
OOR
tion,
“dealing
records
are
with” DPW’s
decide,
instance,
in the first
whether
public
disbursement of
monies and its re
exempt
are
MCO Rates
disclosure
sponsibility to
access to
afford
healthcare
708(b)(ll).
(“Because
§
id.
Contra
in furtherance of
public
services
interest. we
MCO
conclude the
Rates are not ‘finan
Yankees,
C
615 Pa.
665 n.
SWB
f.
records,’
cial
we next consider the RTKL
19 (“Particularly
The order Commonwealth Rates,
is reversed relative MCO pro-
the matter remanded for further
ceedings opinion. consistent with this Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH BAER, Justices TODD and STEVENS Appellee join opinion. v. EAKIN dissenting Justice files a Qu’eed BATTS, Appellant. opinion. EAKIN, dissenting opinion.
Justice Superior Pennsylvania. Court of agree I with the Court’s July 2015. Argued majority containing MCO documents Sept. Filed not Rates are “financial records” within Reargument Denied Nov. RTKL, § § 102 of the 65 P.S. See 67.102. Eiseman, Public
Dep’t of 1117, Welfare (en (Pa.Cmwlth.2014)
banc) (“Because Rates MCO are dis- ‘by
bursed OOR erred in agency,’ [the]
concluding MCO are ‘financial rec- Rates ”).
ords.’ MCO Rates are rates set 437, 450, sky, sumption Legislature that the does not fash Pa. 909 A.2d statutory prescriptions ion surplusage. (2006). 1921(a); 1 Pa.C.S. Commonwealth v. Ostro- *2 Levick, Philadelphia, Marsha amicus cu- riae. . J., J., ALLEN, MUNDY,
BEFORE: FITZGERALD, J.* *3 MUNDY, BY OPINION J.: Batts, Appellant, Qu’eed appeals from 2,May 2014 aggregate judgment of of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, reimposed which our Supreme after vacated the deci- prior of a panel sion this Court and remanded to trial court for resentenc- review, ing. After affirm. careful we We summarize the relevant facts and history juryA procedural as follows. found murder, Appellant guilty first-degree attempted murder, aggravated as- sault.1 These convictions arose from a February gang-related shooting. day, years old, Appellant, On then boys, teenage Corey shot two other Hilario on Edwards, and Clarence the front porch Appellant of Edwards’ residence. first 18-year-old shot Hilario the back as he attempted escape, causing serious bodi- injuries ly Hilario ultimately which fatally Appellant then shot 16- recovered. fallen, Edwards, year-old had who twice the head. an investigation, appre-
After police who, Appellant, during inter- an hended view, eventually shooting confessed Ed- Appellant and Hilario. wards admitted he Hilario, shot Edwards and but claimed he only so did because he believed an older member, Bradley, gang would kill Vernon if Bradley’s him he did follow orders to young shoot the two men. other Nouck, Appellant explained Terence P. Assistant District At- recently he had Easton, Commonwealth, torney, appel- gang, inducted into been the Bloods. On night shooting, lee. passen- he was a * specially assigned Supe- 2702(a), Justice Former §§ respec- 1. 18 Pa.C.S.A. tively. Court. rior public interest the transfer serves Bradley and members other
ger with factors in 42 driven Rasheeda based on the Pa.C.S.A. Bloods a vehicle drove to gang 6355(a)(4)(iii)). members After an evi- extensive McClain. residence, where identi- McClain dentiary Appellant’s Edwards’ motion hearing boys Hilario who as two justice Edwards fied transfer the case her. did previously had robbed of the Juvenile system under Bradley of the victims. not know either Act,3 mo- denied gang would asked which member then Hence, tried as tion. gun in,” gave Appellant work “put adult. mask. consistently trial, At testified the car front of Ed- Appellant exited police gave he statement mask and a put house and wards’ *4 the that he committed contended car down the glove. McClain drove the shootings he felt he duress because parked at to wait for the corner block Bradley’s disobeyed would be if he killed up then the Appellant. Appellant walked to Hilario. De- order shoot Edwards and steps of house onto the front the 31, 2007, defense, July spite duress on Hilario, Edwards, and porch, where Ed- first-degree him jury the of mur- convicted Appellant or- present. father were wards’ der, murder, aggravated attempted get the men to Ed- dered three down. of jury acquitted Appellant assault. escaped into house. As wards’ father the conspiracy charges. the two to Hilario follow Edwards’ fa- attempted back, ther, him Appellant shot in the but 22, 2007, trial court On the sen- October it managed still inside the Hilario make mandatory of term tenced Appellant Edwards, Appellant then house. turned automatically imprisonment, life which porch. and was on the lying who had fallen ineligible for parole. made him 18 over and shot Appellant stood Edwards 1102(a)(1) “a per- § (providing Pa.C.S.A. then Appellant him twice the head. ran son of a who has been convicted murder car, away. group and the drove back degree the first ... be sentenced shall hospital. the Because Edwards died ... imprisonment death a term life shootings, promoted Appellant the was []”), superseded, juvenile relative of- higher sergeant” the rank “universal 1102.1; § 61 Pa. fenders, by 18 Pa.C.S.A. gang. the within 6137(a)(1) § (stating that the C.S.A. Board charged Appellant The Commonwealth of Probation and Parole cannot release with above-listed offenses and two imprison- serving life any inmate of criminal conspiracy.2 counts Because ment). attempted For conviction of murder, charged with was murder, imposed trial court a concur- automatically placed juris- in the case twenty years’ im- rent sentence of six 42 Pa. the criminal court. See diction prisonment.4 § (excluding C.S.A. 6302 from the murder timely post-sentence act”); filed “delinquent of a id. definition motion, Ap- which the court denied. charging § that a (providing 6322 case Court, arguing, pellant may appealed to this with transferred to child murder juvenile among things, the United States court if the child shows that other 903(a)(1). attempted 4. Aggravated merged Pa.C.S.A.§ assault 2. 18 sentencing. purposes of murder for 3. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6301-6375.
37
Florida,
Roper
Sim
v.
560
Supreme
decision
v.
ham
U.S.
130
Court’s
S.Ct.
mons,
1183, 161 2011,
(2010).
543
125
U.S.
S.Ct.
On narrow, holding is decision, plained that Miller’s statutory sentenc- a new awaiting ie., imprison- of life mandatory sentences of mur- juveniles convicted ing scheme are 1102.1,. possibility ment See118 without der, took effect. Section imposed juve- is constitutional when § 1102.1 1102.1. Section Pá.C.S.A.' accordingly It niles convicted murder. ap- but response legislature’s rejected argument that Miller were convicted juveniles who plies only 1102 unconstitutional June rendered Section or after murder 1102.1(a). applied juveniles, reason- § as entirety Id. issued. Miller was date 1102.1(a) as follows. sentencing Section scheme The have juveniles who been separates convict- impo- Section which mandátes catego- into two' first-degree murder ed upon conviction life sition Id, age. who on their Those ries based murder, first-degree see 18 Pa.C.S. time of younger than 15 were § 1102(a), Mil- not itself contradict does subject to murder are either first-degree ler; only it when that mandate be- is or a parole, without imprisonment life life-without-parole a sentence comes ,that a mini- imprisonment is at term to a applied offender—which 1102.1(a)(2). § Id. mum 25 life. years a result of the be- occurs as interaction hand, the other those who were On Code, tween the Parole see years old must be sentenced either 6137(a)(1), § the Juvenile Pa.C.S. parole or a term life Act, § see 42 6302—that Mil- Pa.C.S. years of at least to life. triggered. proscription squarely ler’s 1102(a)(1). provides new statute imposition Miller neither barred court must make find- juve- life-without-parole sentence on a regarding ings on the record a number of categorically nile nor indicated nature of the factors offense related *6 characteristics, and the offender’s includ- mandatorily imposed on never be could characteristics, age-related specific Rather, juvenile. only requires a Miller deciding impose to life with- when whether judicial there be consideration of 1102.1(d). parole juvenile. out on a Id. appropriate age-related the factors set imposi- prior forth in that decision However, the did not Section 1102.1 new tion of a of life sentence apply Appellant was possibility on a without 2007, in before the convicted murder juvenile. Instead, effective date Section 1102.1. (some II, supra Batts at 295-296 citations subject was the version of omitted). also it The Court noted 1102 that in effect at the time expand holding would not Miller sentencing. Accordingly, of his in Batts history legisla- a absent a ¿xamined common law II, our “the ap- Court (citation tive omit- directive. Id. at 296 propriate remedy Eighth for the Amend- ted). Accordingly, Supreme Court re- Miller, that, ment violation occurred to the trial court with instructions manded mandatorily when sen- Appellant following age-related fac- to consider life imprisonment tenced to without in resentencing Appellant. tors for possibility parole upon his conviction trial in a minimum first-degree [A]C [the court] context murder[]” age at juvenile’s then-existing statutory scheme in Section should consider offense, his 1102. Batts time diminished supra.
39 that, change, capacity opined achieve.uniformity culpability and for- in sen- crime, courts tencing, guided by the circumstances trial should participation resentencing juveniles extent of his in in the Section 1102.1 crime, family, neighbor- his home and whose without sentences violat- re-, environment, Miller, his ma- hood but would emotional ed not otherwise be development, turity and the extent sentenced under Section 1102.1 because- Miller'was, may peer pressure that familial they convicted and/or were before de- him, his past exposure J., (Baer, have affected concurring). cided. at 300 violence, drug alcohol his histo- '2, 2014, May two-day On after a sen- ry, ability police, his to deal with the tencing hearing, reimposed the trial court his capacity attorney, assist on’Appellant imprison- sentence of life history, and his poten- mental health parole. ment without tial rehabilitation. so, doing the trial explained that it Knox, [732,] 50 [Commonwealth v.] A.3d appropriate, age-related considered factors Miller, (citing (Pa.Super.2012) [ ] 745 with by accordance Miller as instructed 2455) S.Ct. at resen- [(remanding II majority, the Batts and it also took tencing previously who had suggested guidance Section 1102.1 life without received by opinion. concurring Baer’s Tri- Justice in violation of 8/27/14, 14, Opinion, al quoting structing trial juve resentence N.T., 5/2/14, at 3-8. "The trial court noted nile' to with parole either life or life preparation resentencing denied, parole), appeal 620 Pa. record; had hearing, it reviewed 721, (2013) agree ]. We parties’ sentencing transcripts;5 mem- that the imposition the Commonwealth oranda; presentence an October taking of minimum such fac investigation report; July 2013 re- into most appropriate tors account is the Kraus; psychologist Dr. port forensic remedy for vi the federal constitutional reports by two forensic Dr. psychiatrist olation that when a occurred life-with January Michals 2007 March out-parole mandatorily ap sentence was 2014; January report by foren- plied Appellant. Samuel; psychologist sic Dr. a November II,, (first supra at 297 brackets report by psychologist forensic original). Dattilio, a expert; a Dr. defense Decem- concurring, Baer Justice authored *7 sentencing ber memorandum opinion, joining majority’s in the decision Cook, a an expert; Dana defense and Oc- to the to trial “remand[ ] case the Howell, tober 2013 letter Delores Appellant it to resentence his upon based grandmother. victim murder Edwards’ to circumstances individual Moreover, resentencing with the possibili- hearing, either ty following or without the the trial court received the evi- first[-]degree presented his The. conviction dence. Serbin, Howell, committed he was a Lieutenant Thomas and murder when fourteen Id., juvenile.” (Baer, old year at 299-300 Dr. Michals. Lieutenant Serbin inter- J., concurring). when was Appellant Justice Baer further viewed he transferred ' remand, resentencing reassigned the time of the case for to 5. At Honorable Wil Moran, presided F. who over Koury, liam Michael J. Jr. Honorable trial, president judge The had retired. (SCI) for his and responsibility crimes Re- Institution taken to Correctional State himself. at 23- to rehabilitate Id. Appel- that worked testified 2009. Serbin treat in Likewise, Appellant’s mother read and 24. he was Blood that lant admitted Appellant admitted other Bloods letter which she associated frequently parenting. further appropriate She spoke lacked 19-20. Howell prison. Id. at has dur- Appellant that matured grandson on asserted of her the murder impact of prison his time now deserves family. ing Id. at her her and at 24. second chance. Id. Michals, psychiatrist, a forensic tes- Dr. behalf, apolo- on his testifying Appellant, committed the mur-
tified that family killing Ed- gized to the victim’s acceptance consciously, gain the der grown that he felt had opined and stated he Id. at 26. Dr. Michals wards the Bloods. very young “a man.” Id. at change into mature for a possible it is that N.T., 5/1/14, 24-25, altering per- quoting at 170-171. maturing, but that basic while being gang an Specifi- Appellant also denied active very Id. sonality traits difficult. Id. at 25. Appellant’s basic' member. cally, that he testified traits, instability, impul- including anger, analyzed trial court this evidence The his sivity, judgment, and need see poor listed according factors strong, time persisted over himself as have 9721(b) 1102.1, Section Id. change. Accord- resistant are Sentencing Code, age-specific fac- Appel- ingly, concluded that Dr. Michals Knox, as well additional tors listed' in lant is not amenable to treatment reha- Id. factors the trial court found relevant. Id. bilitation. 1102.1(d) 28-57; see 18 Pa.C.S.A. also hand, determining to Appellant presented (listing considerations when
On the other Dattilio, of life psychol- impose forensic Dr. defense’s 9721(b) (stating juvenile); that ogist. Dattilio Pa.C.S.A. Dr. testified Knox, general su- sentencing principles); influence susceptible gang any age-related factors for strong pra (providing familial he not have bonds did deciding at 20. Dr. Dattilio to sentence childhood. Id. whether during total, explained parole). knew kill- further that life without analysis wrong, youth inexperi- explained but of 23 factors. 8/27/14, Datt- at 44-57. judgment. Opinion, ence Id. Dr. Trial inhibited fac- weighed ilio trial court then the 23 generally related consensus tors, noting Appel- on brain was that that some were not in development research 14-year-olds fully lant’s favor and others were in his favor. brains of are not formed, inability 57-61. which contributes to Mat judgments. make 21. Dr. sound Specifically, trial court found ultimately would opined Dattilio following not in Appellant’s factors were to treatment and rehabilita- amenable brutal, premeditated, favor:, though tion showed hard- even he sohie shootings; nature senseless *8 characteristics, including ened personality alone; Appellant Appellant acted acted Id. at narcissism and antisocial behavior. justification as his duress defense without 22. credible; particular hot the vulnerabil- ity unsuspecting read letter of the two unarmed
Similarly, the trial court a Troxell,. victims; coop- of Appellant’s of lack by Gregory principal teenage written of school, impact the Appellant’s high police; the the school .with middle eration the community; Appellant in had crimes on the victims and which Troxell stated to avoid the minimizing incorrigible need seriousness the rare juveniles who crimes; uncertainty the of Appel- life parole deserve without sen- treatment; amenability lant’s tence? and the Qn - public.
need the protect 2. [Appellant]’s Whether re-sentencing hand, explained other the trial court proceeding was unconstitutional be- Appellant’s number of factors in fa- were provided cause it him with fewer vor, experiences; such as his his procedural safeguards childhood than an adult age 14; lack of facing capital his punishment? criminal record attendance; regular his school expert opin- 3. [Appellant]’s Whether the sentence n oflife without psychological ions that his condition could parole violated the improve; lack of and the evidence that he Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s di- any engaged gang-related violent activi- rective that Defendant be sentenced Id., ty N.T., 5/2/14, “a prison. quoting, maximum sentence imprisonment 56-65. life required the trial court by considered 1102(a), accompanied by “the extent which [Appellant’s] youth minimum immaturity, childhood, sentence his determined troubled pleas the common upon for court resen- acceptance, need desire to tencing?” prove himself to his contributed crime. factors,
We have considered those
includ-
Appellant’s
quoting
Brief at
Batts
disruption
pain
and emotional
Mr.
(footnote omitted).
supra
as a
quot-
child.” Id. at
suffered
Appellant’s first claim purportedly
N.T., 5/2/14,
ing,
at 56-65.
presents
challenge
sufficiency
weighing
After
all of
support
fac-
evidence to
court’s
the trial
tors,
imposition of a
court
without
trial
life
“conclude[d] that
parole
factors
[Appellant’s]
not in
favor
sentence.
Brief at
signifi-
cantly outweigh[ed]
48. Specifically, Appellant
contends that
the factors
his fa-
is’
N.T.,
appeal
opportunity
this
us
5/2/14,
for
quoting,
vor.”. Id.
create
2, 2014,
a different -standard of
Accordingly,
on
review and
May
proof
burden of
juveniles
cases of
re
reimposed a
without
life
ceiving sentences of life
parole,
without
Appellant
on
and a concurrent sen-
yet
Court has not
reviewed
twenty years’
tence of ten to
pre-Miller discretionary
imposition of
Id.,
attempted
murder conviction.
life without
juvenile.
sentence on a
N.T.,
quoting,
5/2/14,at 65-68.
Id. Appellant invites us to'
heighten
filed,
12, 2014,
May
post-
On
from'
standard
review
“abuse
motions,
which the
trial.
discretion”
standard
which we re
day.
denied the next
On June
view all other criminal
in
sentences and
timely
appeal.6
filed
notice
provide
stead
a de novo standard of review
appeal, Appellant
On
is-
presents three
sentences
im
sues
our review.
posed
juveniles using
a “beyond a rea
1.Whether
evidence
insuffi-
doubt”
of proof,
sonable
burden
which is
beyond
cient to establish
ordinarily
reason-
reserved
review of death
[Appellant]
able doubt
is one
sentences.
Id. at
49-50. Such stan-
complied
and the trial court have
dure 1925.
Pennsylvania
Appellate
Rule of
Proce-
*9
reasons,
argues that the
Appellant
review,
enforces
64-65.
Appellant
dard
mit-
rejected
imposing
improperly
life with-
several
presumption against
duress,
factors,
implements
including
af-
gang
igating
out
on
that,
filiation,
immaturity,
“we think
pressure, youth,
in Miller
suggestion
peer
sentencing juve-
occasions
appropriate
dealing
youthful incompetence
penalty will
possible
to this harshest
niles
In
Id. at 65-85.
addi-
law enforcement.
n
49, quoting, Mil-
Id. at
tion,
be uncommon.”7
contends the trial court
Appellant
ler,
Appellant
Accordingly,
at 2466.
supra
prison
in finding that his
record was
erred
of life
reviewing
in'
sentence-
contends
aggravating factor.8 Id.
85-86.
juvenile,
our
parole imposed on
without
asserts
response,
In
the Commonwealth
novo, our
review should
de
standard-of
Appellant’s
actually
first
is
that
issue
plenary, and our
of review should be
scope
challenge
discretionary
to the
aspects
should be that the Com-
proof
standard
sentence, and,
such, Appellant
as
did
beyond
show
a reasonable
monwealth must
preserve
appeal.
Com
not
.issue
is
of the rare
Appellant
that
one
doubt
Specifically,
at 7.
monwealth’s Brief
“incorrigible.”
is
Id. at 52.
juveniles who
that
has
argues
this Court
will conduct a de
Presuming that we
challenges
imposition
to the
treated
Common-
of whether
novo review
juve
of life without
on a
presented
wealth
evidence sufficient
discretionary
going
aspects
nile
Ap-
beyond- a
that
reasonable doubt
show
19, citing,
of a sentence.
Id. at
Common
incorrigible, Appellant, proceeds
pellant is
(Pa.Su
Seagraves,
wealth
A.3d
.weight
gave
the trial court
to contest the
—
denied,
Pa. -,
appeal
per.2014),
resentencing
it
reviewed
evidence
(2015).
challenge
As a
to the
Id,
parole.
at 55-
Appellant to
without
life
aspects of
discretionary
Appellant’s sen
contends that
Specifically, Appellant
tence,
Appel
the Commonwealth asserts
weight
gave.too much
to the
trial court
preserve
not
the issue
lant did
Michals, who
expert, Dr.
Commonwealth’s
brief does not include a concise statement
opined Appellant was not
to re-
amenable
Pennsylvania
reasons
relied
contrast,
55-59.
In
habilitation.
Id. at
2119(f).
Id.
Appellate
Rule
Procedure
Appellant
that
other ex-
maintains
three
Appellant’s develop-
that
perts concluded
agree with the
We
Commonwealth.
since he
murder
.committed
ment
II,
Supreme
Batts
our
instructed
Court
possible.
Id.
rehabilitation
at.
showed
trial court to resentence
af-
points
then
state-
59-64.
that,
considering
age-related
in ter
factors.
ments of the trial
taken
isolation,
supra.
Specifically,
to a conclu-
arguably do
lead
requires only
incorrigible.
explained
sion
“Miller
Center,
Similarly,
brief
7. The Juvenile Law
the Defender As- 8.
the amici
contends that
Philadelphia,
Pennsylva-
gave
improperly
weight
sociation of
trial court
too much
Lawyers
nia Association Criminal Defense
to the
the homicide and
circumstances
collectively filed
brief on behalf
have
an.amici
enough
aggravating
other
factors and not
Appellant.
It reiterates
conten-
factors, including
weight
mitigating
presumption
tion that Miller contained a
immaturity.
Amici
Appellant’s youth
against
a sentence of life
for a
without
Brief
26-50.
juvenile,
implement,
guide
we
must
pleas
the common
courts tasked with deter-
mining
whether to
parole.
Brief
Amici
at 16-22.
*10
judicial
discretionary
a
(noting
aspects challenge
there be
consideration
appropriate age-related
set
a
factors
forth
on claim of
based
an
sentence
excessive
prior
imposition
along
that decision
to
with an assertion that
senténce of life
without the
mitigating
did not
may
consider a
factor
parole
juvenile.”
on a
present
question);
substantial
Common
citing
supra
(Pa.Su
Zirkle,
2467-2468. wealth v.
107 A.3d
The Batts II
noted that the
Court then
per.2014) (treating
claima
challenging the
appropriate age-related
factors
the tri- weight
gave
the trial court
to
sen
various
al court
to consider were contained
tencing
going
factors as one
to the discre
Knox,
citing
supra. Ap-
Knox. Id. at
sentence).
aspects of
tionary
A chal
pellant
go beyond
we
contends
should
lenge
discretionary
to the
of a
aspects
holdings
affirmative constitutional
of Mil-
is
appealable
right;
as of
in
II
impose
heightened
ler and Batts
to
stead,
appellant
petition
per
must
corresponding
burden of
and a
proof,
more
appeal.
to
mission
v. Co
stringent
review,
appellate
lon,
102 A.3d
1042 (Pa.Super.2014),
cases,
to
penalty
akin
death
denied, - Pa. -,
appeal
Accordingly, require- review Appel we The third and fourth of these lant’s challenge weigh the trial court’s arise attack ments factors, of sentencing including not an as of appeal those on his sentence is ones, age-related Rather, challenge as a right. petition must he Court, 2119(f)] discretionary aspects of his sentence. state- [Rule concise Seagraves, reasons, grant supra (reviewing juve ment consideration appellant’s nile challenge appeal grounds life without of his on the that there reimposed question. appeal fol is a [I]f remand substantial lowing require- for an Miller Batts II satisfies each of these four abuse discretion); ments, proceed see also Commonwealth we will then decide Zeigler, (Pa.Super.2015) 112 A.3d merits the case. substantive *11 or Edwards, 323, challenged proceeding to whether the 71 A.3d v.
Commonwealth (citations justice omit principle conduct offends some (Pa.Super.2013) 329-330 765, denied, 81 A.3d 622 Pa. ted), and con- appeal so in the traditions rooted fails (2013). a defendant “[i]f as 75 people of our as to be ranked science 2119(f) Rule an issue his to include com- the defínefs] fundamental and that statement, objects, the Commonwealth and decency. munity’s play of fair sense this is Court then issue waived and the definition, capable not exact While of an may the claim.” Common not review process of procedural elements due basic 158, (Pa.Su Karns, 166 v. 50 A.3d wealth notice, adequate opportunity are denied, 721, Pa. 65 619 appeal per.2012), heard, one- and the chance defend be (2013). A.3d 413 impartial a fair tribunal self before appeal, Appellant filed jurisdiction having
In over the case. his preserved timely notice of appeal 270, 961 Wright, v. 599 Pa. Commonwealth timely post-sentence his motion. claims in (brackets (2008) original; A.2d 132 However, not Appellant’s brief did contain quotation marks internal citations and 2119(f) of the concise statement Rule omitted). ap upon allowance of reasons relied brief, Commonwealth, in its ob peal. The juve Specifically, Appellant contends a Appellant’s to include a jected to failure facing nile a sentence of life 2119(f) in his brief. Com Rule statement due without is same entitled Hence, at 21-22. we monwealth’s Brief as process facing penal an adult the death addressing are precluded from discre namely right by ty, be sentenced supra; Edwards, tionary aspects claim.9 See against jury, proof weighted burden rns, supra. Ka Commonwealth, requirement of verdict, automatic review unanimous issue, Appellant In his as second Supreme Brief Appellant’s Court. that he was entitled the same serts argument on at 93. bases procedural process afforded to an due procedure adults facing punishment capital adult the. I, penalty given in 9711 Eighth and Article Section death Amendment Sentencing as as Pennsylvania Ap 13 of the the United Constitution. Code well pellant’s Supreme Brief at 89. Our opinion Court’s Gra States explained Florida, 48, 69-70, has our standard of review 130 v. 560 ham U.S. procedural process claims as due follows. (2010), which S.Ct. 825 L.Ed.2d without to the death compared life process inquiry,
A in its most due form, penalty. general entails an assessment as Id. noted, brief, “if raised an reply asserts that Commonwealth had In his 2119(f) Rule statement Appellant’s omission of a objection "[t]he failure to include to the presence brief, 2119(f) not fatal if the or absence of a sub- we a Rule statement question easily stantial can be determined addressing precluded mer- would from appellant’s Appellant’s Re- from the brief.” discretionary aspects challenge its of a to the Davis, ply citing Brief Commonwealth v. Id., sentencing.” citing (Pa.Super.1999). Ap- 734 A.2d n. 4 Minnich, Pa.Super. pellant’s misplaced reliance on Davis is case, (1995). Commonwealth ob- In this actually may supports our conclusion that we jected to include a Rule Appellant’s failure Davis, Appellant’s not review claim. statement; 2119(f) therefore, preclud- we are object of a Commonwealth did lack addressing Id. the claim. ed 2119(f) Rule statement. Davis (Baer, J., argument concurring) lacks at 300 (encouraging
We conclude any constitu- the trial to apply merit. We cannot discern Section 1102.1 to statutory or process Appellant). tional due basis resentence im- ground provide juveniles facing Therefore; no we find constitutional due prisonment paiple with the same process ground statutory support for protections procedural process due Appellant’s argument procedure *12 Indeed, facing penalty. adults the death in Section 9711 to his apply should resen- Court a manda- the Miller concluded (con tencing. Seagraves, supra at 850 Cf. of life for a tory sentence without cluding its court did not abuse juvenile was unconstitutional reimposing discretion in a without pa life “Graham, Roper, and our individualized Knox, role on juvenile); sentence supra sentencing decisions clear that make a to (instructing the trial remand jury judge opportunity or must have age-related listed in consider factors decid to mitigating consider circumstances be- to whether sentence to life possible imposing fore penal- harshest with or possibility parole). without the Miller, ty juveniles.” supra for at 2475 Accordingly, argument is with Miller, added). however, In (emphasis out merit because the trial court followed specific did not hold that a proce- Court procedure by outlined Supreme our age-related to dure consider factors was (cid:127) to Appellant Court resentence after con constitutionally required. II, sidering age-related factors. Batts su II, in Supreme Batts our Court . pra at 297 determining it appro- stated that was “the priate remedy Eighth for the Amendment issue, In his third Appellant argues that, Miller, violation when occurred illegal that his sentence was because the Appellant was to mandatorily sentenced trial court to did not- adhere the instruc imprisonment life without tions of our it Supreme impose Court that parole upon first-degree his conviction for mandatory “a maximum sentence of life II, supra at It re- murder.” Batts required by Section to manded instructions the common 1102(a), accompanied by a minimum sen pleas court to after resentence tence the common pleas determined considering the factors Knox. Id. listed upon resentencing.” Appellant’s It did not the trial court instruct quoting supra. Brief at Batts heightened as to a proof burden Our for standard of ex procedure review considering
different
for
those
amining
legality
ap
on'
a sentence
age-related factors.
is as
peal
follows.
Moreover,
is
while
not entitled
challenge
to a
a
legality
sentence under the new
sentence
A
he
... may
scheme
Section 1102.1 because
was
be entertained as
as the
long
find,
date,
reviewing
jurisdiction.
convicted before
effective
we
court has
It is
statutory
our
in-
also
legislature’s response
Miller
that if no
well-established
1102.1(d)
particular
structive. Section
instructs the
authorization exists for
sen-
findings,
tence,
including
court to make
is illegal
certain
that sentence
and sub-
factors,
age-related
ject
An illegal
record
deter-
correction.
sentence
on the
,
.
mining
impose
relating
whether
must
vacated.
sentence
Issues
juvenile.
legality
questions
life
18 Pa.
of a
are
without
on a
sentence
.,.
1102.1(d);
II, supra
C.S.A.
Batts
Our
over
accord
standard
review
law[.]
categorically
II- as
scope
decline
read
de novo and
questions'
such
*
pa-
of life without
prohibiting-
sentence
is plenary.
of review
Miller,
before
juveniles
role
sentenced
Cardwell, 105
great-
juveniles
which would afford-those
(citations
quota-
(Pa.Super.2014)
and.
Su-
protection than the United States
er
omitted).
tion marks
constitutionally nec-
was
preme Court held
subject
case,
Miller,
essary in
that our
result
parole pursuant
of life
sentence
without
'
It
specifically
condemned.
1102(a)
following his conviction
Section.
convicted
subject
juveniles
would also
life
Before
first-degree murder.
Miller was
Section
decided and
before
mandatory for.a first-
without
1102.1 was effective to
lesser
Pennsylvania.
murder conviction
degree
Miller and sub-
than those convicted after
pa-
held
Miller
in-
1102.1. We decline to
ject
juveniles-.
not be
role could
*13
categorical-
II as
terpret Miller and Batts
that
specifically held
Supreme
Our
Court
of
ly prohibiting
life' without
a sentence
1102(a)
not
un-
render Section
Miller did
juveniles,
Appellant,
parole
such
II, supra at 295-296.
Batts
constitutional.
of
Miller was is-
convicted murder before
prohibit
not
either the
Millet did
II,
296;
see
See'Batts
also
supra
sued.
of
of
without
imposition
a sentence
life
(Baer, J., concurring) (stating
id.
of
mandatory
parole or even a
sentence
“remand[
that the Court’s decision was to
]
II,
parole
juvenile.
for-
Batts
life with
a
.
to
trial
for it
resen-
the case
court
Instead,
requires
“Miller
supra at
upon his
tence
based
individual
judicial consideration of
only that there be
of life impris-
circumstances to
sentence
...
age-related factors
appropriate
parole
of
possibility
onment either with the
of life
prior
imposition
to the
of
sentence
...
possibility
of
.without the
pa-
of
without
]”). Therefore,
the trial
conclude that
[
we
Id.,
juvenile.”
citing
role on a
sentence,
legal
court
con-
imposed
herein
swpra
Supreme
at'2467-2468. Our
II,
sistent
Batts
of life
with Miller and
holding
that
Batts II was
noted
considering
Appel-
after
protections
an-
coextensive with
circumstances, including
lant’s individual
(citation omitted)
in Miller.
nounced
age-related
characteristics.
(refusing
expand
holding
the narrow
all
foregoing,
we
Miller).
Based
conclude
Appellant’s
merit or
issues are without
this,
Ms
Appellant contends that
Despite
preserved. Accordingly,
not
we affirm the
illegal
Supreme
sentence was
because our
2,May
judgment
of sentence.
Court,
II, categorically precluded
in Batts
Judgment
imposition
of a sentence of life without
of sentence affirmed.'
juveniles
convicted
first-de-
Judge
opinion.
joins
ALLEN
gree
prior
murder
date
effective
1102.1. In
arguing
the'trial
files a
Justice FITZGERALD
required
impose
court
a minimum
is
dissenting opinion.
concurring and
(ie.,
pa-
life with
sentence
DISSENTING
CONCURRING AND
role),
one
Appellant reads
sentence of
FITZGERALD, J.:
BY
OPINION
opinion in Batts II
Court’s
thoroughly
Opinion
sum-
required
Majority
isolation
that it
and contends
procedural history
trial
marizes the factual and
impose a minimum sentence
(ie.,
legal
of the
as well as
appeal,
instant
parole).
We
appropriate
Miller and
[W]e
framework
think
occasions for
established
Pennsylvania Supreme. Court deci
prior
sentencing juveniles
this harshest
Majority
atOp.
this matter.1
35-
sion
possible penalty will be' uncommon.
applied
I concur that Miller must
especially
That
is
so
rejection
narrowly
as.a
great difficulty ... of distinguishing at
juvenile
life-without-parole
imposition
age
this early
of-
between
id.
(discussing
at 38-39
sentence.
fender
crime reflects
whose
unfortunate
295-96).
agree
66 A.3d at
I
also
yet
immaturity,
rare
transient
and the
law
support Appel
the current
does not
juvenile offender whose crime reflects
suggestion
import
lant’s
,
we
the stan
irreparable corruption. Although we do
procedures
imposition-
dards
not
ability
foreclose
sentencer’s
penalty
the death
life-without-
,
cases,
judgment
make
homicide
(dis
parole sentences. See id. at 44-45
require it to take into
we
account how
cussing 42
Pa.C.S.
9711 and
different,
are
children
and how those
93).
However, following
Brief
against
irrevocably
counsel
differences
Pennsylvania’s
law,
review
I
prison.
to a
sentencing them
lifetime in
2119(f)
waiver under
believe
Pa.R.A.P.
—Miller,
at -,
U.S.
132 S.Ct. at
appropriate
would hold the
(citations,
quotation
L.Ed.2d
properly
failed
consider
marks,
omitted) (emphasis
footnote
unique
imposing
issues
a sen
when
raised
'
added).
*14
Thus,
of life-without-parole.
tence
for the
follow,
I
applied narrowly,
reasons
remand this While
must be
would
Miller
Batts,
131-32,
for resentencing.
matter
620 Pa.
see
at
rifíc, crime-producing “mak[ing] judgment require [he] is not as “well third, character a child’s “ adult’s; ‘incorrigibility is incorrigible” are traits as an formed” —but likely to for youth.’” less And his actions inconsistent fixed” and “less reason, de- rehabilitation could not irretrievabl[e] same be “evidence pa- Life justify that sentence. pravity].” rehabili- altogether the — role “forswears 2464, 183 at -, 132 at S.Ct. Id. U.S. It “an irrevocable reflects tative ideal.” (citations and 420-21 footnote at L.Ed.2d offender’s] about value judgment [an omitted). Moreover, society,” at with a place in odds proportion of [“]‘[o]nly relatively small ” change. capacity child’s ac- engage illegal who adolescents’ “ at -, patterns Id. 132 S.Ct. 183 L.Ed.2d ‘develop entrenched tivity ” omitted). (citations [“Develop- at 423-24 ... problem behavior.’ psychology and brain science ments Pennsylvania Su- Following differ- continue to show fundamental this matter Court remanded preme adult ences between court, resentencing and directed “parts of the example, minds”—for alia, age-related factors. inter consider in behavior control.” brain involved Pa. Batts rashness, transient findings [T]hose Knox, (citing 50 A.3d —of risk, inability to assess proclivity However, (Pa.Super.2012)). a child’s consequences lessened provide, guidance II decision did —both culpability” and enhanced “moral factors. age-related how to consider that, by and years go as the prospect view, my the answer lies 296-97. occurs, his neurological development “ principles in the traditional ” reformed.’ will be ‘deficiencies Pennsylvania and evaluation ef- 2464-65, -, of Miller. Id. at S.Ct. at fects omitted). (citations 421-22 L.Ed.2d at sentencing for Traditionally, *15 murder The Miller summarized: represented exception first an degree “indeterminate, youth Pennsylvania’s advisory, of di- distinctive attributes [T]he for penological justifications guided” sentencing scheme. See Com minish the Yuhasz, 120, 131, ju- 592 Pa. at the harshest monwealth v. imposing sentences II, 1111, (2007); offenders, 1117 620 they commit 923 A.2d Batts venile even when 131, A.3d General heart Pa. at 66 The “‘[t]he terrible crimes. Because ” Assembly imposition of a of rationale’ relates to mandated the the retribution “ blameworthiness, of at least a single, an ‘the maximum sentence offender’s first-degree of for strong imprisonment for is not as case retribution term life ” 1102(a) See, § e.g., a Nor can 18 Pa.C.S. minor as with adult.’ murder. 25, ,2012); context, 42 (subsequently do work in this amended Oct. deterrence “ II, 131, 9711; § 620 Pa. at same characteristics that Pa.C.S. Batts ‘the 297; 295, 133-34, culpable 66 accord 18 juveniles less than A.3d at render (b); 1102.1(a), § immaturity, v. Commonwealth adults’ ”—their reckless- Pa.C.S. 613, 623, Yount, ness, Pa.Super. 615 impetuosity them less 419 A.2d —make (1992) 1316, (recognizing trial court punishment. 1321 likely potential to consider first-degree Similarly, incapacitation sup- could not murderer could sentence sentence_ life). That port life-without-parole than sentence to lesser term parole” made the Pris- Deciding “juvenile that a offender forev- “without under
49
community,
61
victim and
ons and Parole Code. See
Pa.C.S.
and the defen-
II,
6187(a)(1);
131, 66
§
Batts
620 Pa. at
dant’s rehabilitative needs are implicitly
II,
As
in Batts
by
juvenile-
A.3d at 295-96.
noted
fact
considered
a
a
mandatory sentencing
applied
scheme
of first-degree
defendant convicted
murder
juvenile-defendant
subject
when the trial court de will be
to some
supervision
form of
a
for
petition
nied
decertification under the
Commonwealth
life. See 42
6302,
9721(b);
§§
§
42
Act. See
Pa.C.S.
Juvenile
Pa.C.S.
Commonwealth v.
II,
6322(a);
131,
Walls,
569,
Following
a
Conversely,
must im-
Miller and Batts ended dec-
life,
may
a
of
pose maximum sentence
but
ades of sentencing under
impose minimum
in a
of
life-without-parole
sentence
term
juveniles
scheme for
133-34,
years. See Batts
show
circumstances,
the
but
sentence under
appropriate under
[the
in not
imposed
Code]).
grossly dispa
protect.against
also to
Lastly,, our assess-
Sentencing
- treatment
of
like offenders
a trial court
rate
requirement that
the
ment of
throughout the Commonwealth.
inipos-
factors when
age-related
“consider”
life-without-parole sentence
Vega,
v.
Commonwealth
850 A.2d
extraordinary'
sufficiently
legal
raises
omitted).
(citation
(Pa.Super.2004)
1281
despite
pro-
review
question warrant
Further, where,
here,
presiding
as
Therefore, I would de-
cedural default.
sentencing
judge,
is
the trial
judge
not
un-
to find
waived
cline
issues
“many
justifying1
of
factors
the defer
2119(f).
Rule
der
normally accorded to the
ence
present....”
not
Commonwealth
court are
review as
of
is
follows:
Our standard
Bullicki,
416, 419,
v.
513
Pa.Super.
standard of review when
proper
[T]he
(1986)
omitted).
(citations
A2d
considering whether to affirm the sen-
an
tencing
Instantly,
forth
court’s determination
the trial court set
a thor-
fact,
abuse of
of
ough summary
findings
[A]n
abuse
discretion.
dis-
con-
its
than a
law,
explanation
cretion is more
mere error
clusions
of its sen-
thus, a
judgment;
sentencing court will
sixty pages
over
See
transcript.
tence
5/2/14,
N.T.,
summarizing
abused its
unless
not have
discretion
at 6-66. After
.
judgment
approximately
aggravating
“the record discloses that
factors
eleven
unreasonable,
factors,-the-court
manifestly
mitigating
exercised was
four
de-
partiality, prejudice,
or
bias
the result of
in [Appellant’s]
termined “the factors not
terms,
expansive
or
more
ill-will.” In
significantly outweigh the factors
favor
may
id.,-
abuse of
not be
discretion
[“a]n
See.
-64-65. Under ordi-
his-favor.”
circumstances,
merely
appellate
found
nary
diligence
such
have,
might
part
reached
different conclu-
provides
a trial
alone
a basis
sion,
of manifest
requires
disturbing
result
but
for not
exercise
discretion.
unreasonableness,
or partiality, preju-
Begley,
Pa.
(“As
bias,
ill-will,
dice,
(2001)
or such
long
lack
clearly
so as to
support
be
erroneous.”
trial court’s
demonstrate
reasons
it-weighed
Sentencing
Guidelines
Walls,
Although may be there circumstances expectations, gang’s his intent was to which, in can ex- partially crime prove to his fellow criminals that he was by a plained young defendant’s reckless- willing to commit a cold-blooded murder. ness, poor judgment, foresight, lack of premeditat- I am not suggesting that susceptibility pressure, or peer weak ed murder can im- never be considered control, impulse such not pulsive purposes sentencing. crime. im- [Appellant] did not act might There well be un- circumstances caught pulse. up youthful He was not premeditated der which murder could be abil- risk-taking behavior and lacked the product poor,judgment,, lack of ity to it might get foresee how oüt foresight, peer pres- susceptibility to control. [Appellant] purposeful made a sure, impulse weak control. That parents’ choice move out his home not the case here. and commit himself to life the Bloods gang. from prior experience He knew N.T., 5/2/14, at 46-47. The further gang and observation that Bloods emphasized although gang a senior organization violent criminal and member, Bradley, Vernon “invited” the that he asked to vio- would be commit crime, Appellant agreed commission lent days [Ap- criminal Four acts. after to do so and “acted alone”. See id. at 57. house, pellant] parents’ moved out his Appellant was old years fourteen at the Bradley [Appellant] opportu- offered time the crimes. n nity committing to prove himself was entitled consider murder, [Appellant] acted on the the callous and nature of Appel- deliberate opportunity. not caught up He was killing of sixteen-year-old lant’s Clarence the heat of a confrontation but stressful n shooting eighteen-year-old Edwards and had time to plan deliberate. He Corey Similarly, in the Hilario back. face, a mask placed pulled over findings court’s associa- hands, up onto his gloves picked tion with the Bloods and his decision to handgun. got He out of car and rebut Appel- “act alone” were “volitional” walked down the street toward the Ed- However, lant’s claim of the fact duress. wards house. he up When walked choices made conscious be- steps porch gun to the front with the hand, ages of fourteen acting impulse he was not tween the twelve and does might necessarily lack of distinctive at- appreciation what diminish the *18 — Ap- Ultimately, at work.” See at 47. U.S. id. youth. of tributes Cf. him a 2464-65, Bradley “gave at pellant agreed, 183 L.Ed.2d and -, S.Ct. at (“children maturity Appel- have lack at 14. handgun.” 420-21 and a Id. mask underdeveloped responsi- sense vic- and an put glove, approached lant recklessness, impulsivity, bility, leading to in as home, the back tims’ shot Hilario Second, risk-taking. children and heedless house, Ed- and shot Hilario into fled influ- negative ... more vulnerable are fell in the after Edwards wards twice head pressures, including and outside ences Appel- ground. Id. at 27-28. (internal quo- family peers” and from their com- years old he lant fourteen when was omitted)). marks tation attempted murder. the murder and mitted resentencing at hear- The evidence However, horrific crimes. These were that a “troubled childhood” established finding Appellant “acted the court that Appellant’s removal his included totality circum- ignored the alone” he was five young mother’s care3 when Brad- Appellant met stances under which N.T., 5/2/14, at 41. He years old. See ley, instigated Appellant under- Bradley to an- “frequently from one home moved gave acts, Bradley and take the criminal homes, in spent time as other” and foster Appellant weapon.4 youths. well a homeless shelter See gang into Appellant’s descent According to the trial court’s sum- id. returning to his association after mother’s facts, mary Appellant returned to at the and commis- age care twelve age at stepfather’s his and care mother age fourteen sion of the crime at twelve, he in the when was seventh attributes of correlate with the distinctive Appellant at 42. grade. Id. befriended youth. expert, Dr. Blood, imprisoned. The Commonwealth’s subsequently was who Michals, Timothy J. eighth Appel- testified trial grade, Id. in at 25. When by join gang, approached Appellant lant and “was the Bloods was forced join gang.” Id. part “there invited but need noted, own [Appellant’s] “Because belong something, to- he and made the fractured, family N.T., life been he found had going direction.” choice , appealing.” gang 7/26/07, Nevertheless, Id. Dr. Mi- at 160-61. “rash opined Appellant chals and exhibited Appellant ninth grade, When danger impulsive willingness to court years reuniting after approximately two risk harm. He acts the face fearless mother, Appellant moved out with punitive action.” Id. 166. threats and dispute. following family her home Id. Samuel, E. Common- Dr. another Steven stayed gang at 42. He members expert at the hear- wealth decertification leaving Appellant Id. 27. after home. ing, opined was “vulnerable Blood, Bradley, met a more senior who older, powerful of an more to the demands confront “invited” him to Edwards. Samuel, Ph.D., later, Report male.” Steven days id. at 47. Four 1/12/07, experts, car other defense Bradley were in a -with Bloods Dattilio, Cook, in Dr. Frank and Dana Bradley “put asked who wanted M. re- Ap- Bradley again no one Appellant's was thirteen when at 64. asked mother N.T., 5/2/14, pellant gun at 16. sponded. Bradley was born. then handed "Blood, stated, I and mask to trial, Appellant no 4. At testified that one brought put just you You can’t work home. asked, Bradley responded the car after me?" in for Id. at 65. N.T., 7/30/07, going put work "Who's in?” *19 “impulsive,” was suggested Appellant being possessing “poor judg- both vulnerable ment,” by Frank M. gang Report engaging “acting to influences. out” behav- in N.T., Ph.D., 11/21/13, 15; Datillio, Id. at Dr. con- at ior. 49-50. Michals Addendum cluded, M.S., Cook, 12/31/13, change at “Characteristics can Report by Dana to but.it’s very to changes difficult make (unpaginated). The court further credit- basic Kraus, ... personality.” of at testimony of structure Id. 59. ed the Dr. E. Susan county psychologist, Appel- who evaluated However, the court Appel- also noted report. lant for presentence testi- She experts lant’s two and an independent willing any- fied that was “to Appellant do opined Appellant evaluator was amenable thing accepted as a become successful N.T., 5/2/14, Spe- rehabilitation. at 54. member, gang including commission Dr. cifically, Appellant Dattilio stated has N.T., 5/2/14, 52. if murder.” Even capacity change,” “the “the desire is Appellant’s join decision to Bloods was genuine,” and “remorse is genuine.” his “volitional,”’it was purposeful decision N.T., opined at 110. Ms. Cook 5/1/14, who was twelve or thir- then Appellant extraordinary has “an amount of years teen old. potential to law-abiding member M.S., society....” by. Cook, Dana Report findings the trial court’s own 12/31/13, at (unpaginated). Dr. Kraus that Appellant’s criminal actions were “out “ Appellant ‘appeared] determined to have him, character” belie determina- significant changes thinking rnade in his tion to of youth. devalue the attributes years and behavior over his in prison and N.T., 5/2/14, at 51-52. Before the shoot- competent at this ame- point appears ings, had rec- Appellant prior no criminal N.T., 5/2/14, nable to treatment.’” at 53. ord, in engaged began but fights, Dr. opined Kraus that would drugs. use and at 51. sell Id. need if supervision Id. released. shootings, After the Appellant had six dis- ciplinary incarcerated, in- infractions while The trial court determined cluding fight throwing liquid 2010 and slightly “young age weighted] fa- [his] 34-35, at another inmate in Id. at 2014. assessing amenability vor in to treat- [his] However, observed, 51. as the court those ment and rehabilitation and rehabili- [his] not episodes approach the level of did vio- capacity tation and for change.” [his] Id. displayed lence the instant crimes. added). (emphasis at 61 It concluded that Thus, at 51-52. the trial court’s discount- it significant not could “be confident ing Appellant’s youthful attributes years ... change therapy” it susceptibility gangs as related period “an extended of incarceration.” Id. culpability lacked support the record. 59-60.
Second,
view,
the trial
noted that all
In my
findings
the. trial court’s
experts
resentencing agreed
Appel-
conclusions contradict
principle
lant
“youth
“demonstrated some
matters”
abil
capacity for
innate
change
years.”
change
in recent
Id. at
ity
It
of a
and mature. Cf.
U.S. at -,
expert,
observed the
Dr.
Commonwealth’s
—
S.Ct. at
Michals,.
(“a
Appellant child’s
stated
resistant
183 L.Ed.2d
character
adult’s;
and had
potential
treatment
not
‘well
as an
limited
as
formed’
rehabilitation due to
‘íess
and his actions less
psychological
“chronic
traits are
fixed’
5/1/14,
maladjustment.” N.T.,
likely
to be ‘evidence
de
irretrievabl[e]
Dr.
also
“is
heard
suggested Appellant
pravity].’).
Michals
The court
evidence
is[,]”
age
who he
was a critical
as
and described
fourteen
self,
needs
lant]
sense
does
diminish
forming
[his]
“just
[his]
*20
jus-
N.T.,
community
that
victim
the
to see
and
and reason.”
judgment
sense of
56,
N.T., 5/2/14,
at
67-
although
court
is
5/1/14,
tice
done.” See
at 107.
sentence,
1102.1,
§
court
imposing its
Pa.C.S.
68. After
to consider 18
purported
Appel-
Assembly’s posed
question
a rhetorical
whether
the General
it did not discern
mercy if
youth particularly
family
mat-
lant’s
would ask for
that
policy decision
youn-
Id. at 68.
juvenile-defendant
is
had
killed.6
been
ters when
thereafter,
he commits the
the resen-
Shortly
when
it concluded
ger
fifteen
than
Pa.C,S.
1102.1(a)(l)-(2)
“Mercy
§
stating,
tencing proceeding,
18
crime. See
mandatory minimum
will have
from God.
[Appellant]
Sentence
come
(reducing
years
aged
Id at 68.
mercy
[his]
those
fif- God have
soul.”
thirty-five
years for
twenty-five
or
those
teen
older
of our
misperceives
the nature
The
fifteen).
age
view
.sentencing
by
scheme
indeterminate
court, moreover, framed its
The trial
mini
crafted
ing
appropriately
an
definite
the Common-
choice as two extremes:
Yuhasz, 592
mum
as lenient. See
that Appellant
recommendation
wealth’s
1117-1118;
923
Com
Pa.
A.2d
parole,
to life without
and
be sentenced
Daniel,
642, 647-48,
monwealth v.
430 Pa.
for a sentence of twen-
request,
(1968) (“[T]he
maximum
243 A.2d
403
ty-five years
suggested by
to life as
18
portion
only
sentence is
of the sen
N.T., 5/2/14,
§ 1102.1. See
at 56.
Pa.C.S.
validity,
that
legal
tence which has
and
620
66
But see Batts
Pa. at
A.3d at
adminis
merely
minimum sentence
an
no meaningful
293. There was
consider-
availability of
regarding the
trative notice”
incarceration,
of minimum
ation
term'
parole.) An
minimum sen
appropriate
twenty-five year
above the
minimum sen-
right
no
tence would create
to release
N.T.,
64;
it rejected.5 See
tence
5/2/14
parole.
Rogers
See
v. Bd.
Prob. &
1102.1(e)
(permitting
trial
Pa.C.S.
cf.
285, 292,
Parole, 555 Pa.
A.2d
court to
mini-
sentence above
Kleinicke,
(1999);
sentence).
mum
banc).
(en
(Pa.Super.2006)
suggested
requires
that Parole
assessments. Pa
Similarly, the
further
only
granted
prison
“a
a sentence less
life without
role would
be
after
than
“leniency”
“mercy,”
act of
er has
Board’s
would be an
demonstrated
Parole
satisfaction,
ability
to function
depreciate
which would
the seriousness
his future
as
law-abiding
society.”
on the
impact
the offense and
victims.
member
court,
alia,
Rogers,
The
inter
555 Pa.
wealth. Appel-
properly assess
lant’s or consider the rehabilitation sen-
tencing to it. alternatives available sum, I conclude the would record when impos-
reveals abuse discretion life-without-parole sentence. The *21 discounting
trial court’s
youthful susceptibility attributes pressure
peer support lacked the rec- recognize
ord. The court failed
inherent evidence of record fourteen-year-old potential for. offender’s
rehabilitation. it did consider Therefore, I alternatives.
would remand this matter resentenc-
ing. Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH
Kyle JORDAN, Appellee.
Superior Pennsylvania.
Argued March
Filed Sept.