Sentencing Juvenile Defendant Age-appropriate Factors
Commonwealth v. Knox, PICS Case No. 17-0972 (Pa. Super June 5, 2017) Panella, J. (11 pages).
The record established that the juvenile defendant had mental health issues and suffered through a very difficult childhood; however, there was no indication that the trial court completely disregarded defendant's circumstances when it imposed a 35-year prison term after his conviction for second-degree murder. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment of sentence.
In 2007, defendant and his twin brother attempted to carjack Jehru Donaldson. Donaldson drove away from the attempt, but one of the brothers fatally shot him as they fled. Defendant was 17 years old at the time. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison without parole. The Superior Court vacated the sentence pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (Pa. Super 2012), which held that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole was unconstitutional because it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. At re-sentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 35 years-to-life in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court imposed a "manifestly excessive." The Superior Court explained that when it vacated and remanded defendant's initial sentence of life without parole, there were no sentencing guidelines in place for defendant's conviction of second-degree murder. Life without parole was mandated under the then-existing scheme. The legislative and sentencing commission's response to the holding in Miller were both effective only for convictions that occurred after June 24, 2012. Defendant was convicted in June 2008; thus, the sentencing guidelines provided no guidance on the proper minimum sentence or the factors to be considered at re-sentencing, the court explained. As such, the trial court was to exercise its discretion in accordance with Commonwealth v. Batt, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013). The Batt court held that a trial court should, at a minimum, consider a juvenile's age at the time of the offense, his diminished culpability and capacity for change, his family, his home life and, inter alia, his emotional maturity and development. At re-sentencing, the trial court considered a presentence investigation report (PSI), the testimony of the victim's father and defendant's testimony and concession that he had an extensive juvenile delinquency history, including incidents involving firearms. Moreover, defendant did not respond well to supervision in the juvenile system. The appellate court found it clear that defendant had mental health issues and suffered through an extremely difficult childhood. However, he did not point to any deficiency in the PSI and there was no indication that the trial court completely disregarded defendant's circumstances when it imposed the sentence. Thus, the trial court did not abuse it discretion when it imposed the sentence upon defendant.