First-Degree Murder Juvenile Defendant Life Without Possibility of Parole Legality of Sentence

Commonwealth v. Batts, PICS Case No. 17-1134 (Pa. June 26, 2017) Donohue, J.; Baer, J., concurring and dissenting. (90 pages).

The commonwealth was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a juvenile offender was incapable of rehabilitation for a sentencing court to impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Judgment of sentence reversed, case remanded for resentencing.

Qu'eed Batts appealed from the decision of the appellate division affirming the trial court's imposition of a life sentence without parole. Appellant was convicted for the first-degree murder of Clarence Edward and attempted homicide of Corey Hilario. Following his turbulent childhood, appellant joined the Bloods gang. When appellant was 14 years old, he was instructed by Vernon Bradley, a senior member of the Bloods, to kill Edwards, which appellant did by shooting him twice in the head; appellant shot Hilario in the back as he attempted to flee. After the jury convicted appellant of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault, the trial court imposed the then-mandatory term of life without parole.

Appellant filed a direct appeal, challenging the constitutionality of imposing life without parole upon a juvenile. During the pendency of the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama, 565 U.S. 1013, in which the Court ruled unconstitutional the mandatory imposition of life without parole upon juveniles. Based on Miller, the court vacated appellant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, ruling that juveniles could be sentenced to life without parole after evaluation of the criteria identified in Miller. Upon remand, the trial court reinstated a sentence of life without parole, finding that the factors not in appellant's favor outweighed the factors in his favor. On second appeal, the appellate division construed appellant's argument as a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, and concluded that he waived his claim by failing to file a Rule 2199(f) statement.

On appeal, appellant argued that there was no mechanism in Pennsylvania's sentencing scheme to ensure that life without parole for juveniles would be "uncommon." Appellant requested the court impose procedural safeguards, including a presumption against imposition of life without parole upon juveniles, a requirement for competent expert testimony, and a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof. Appellant further argued that, because the sentencing court found that appellant had some capacity for change, it was precluded from imposing a sentence of life without parole. Thus, appellant contended that his sentence of life without parole was illegal, as the sentencing court's decision violated the dictates of Miller and its progeny.