Constitutionality of Mandatory Life Imprisonment with No Possibility of Parole for Second-Degree Murder
Commonwealth v. Lee, 2023 WL 3961802 (Pa. Super.) (unreported), allocatur granted Feb. 16, 2024, appeal docket 3 WAP 2024
In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for second-degree murder.
The trial court summarized the factual background as follows:
On October 14, 2014, at approximately three o’clock in the afternoon, two men entered the residence shared by Leonard Butler, Tina Chapple, and their young son. While Chapple was upstairs, she was called to come down … to the living room by Butler. When she got to the living room, she observed two males with guns and partially covered faces. Both Butler and Chapple were forced into the basement of the home, and then were forced to kneel. Both males were yelling at Butler to give up his money and one used a taser on Butler several times during the attack. One of the men, referred to by Chapple in interviews with police as “the meaner one,” pistol whipped Butler in the face before taking his watch and running up the stairs. The second male remained with the couple and when Butler began to struggle with him over the gun, a shot was fired killing Butler.
During the investigation, it was determined that a rental vehicle under [Lee’s] name had been present outside of the home around the time of the shooting. Additionally, on October 29, 2014, Chapple was shown a photo array by police and positively identified [Lee] as the male involved in the incident that was not the shooter.
Slip op. at 1-2, quoting Trial Court Opinion, 3/23/22, at 1-2. A jury found Lee guilty of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy, resulting in the trial court sentencing Lee to serve a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for his second-degree murder conviction and to serve a consecutive term of ten to 20 years in prison for his criminal conspiracy conviction. Lee appealed to Superior Court, arguing that his life sentence without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because:
…he did not kill or intend to kill anyone and, thus, he has diminished culpability; a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for individuals who did not kill or intend to kill is unduly harsh in relation to legitimate penological purposes; and, “Pennsylvania’s mandatory life-without parole sentencing scheme is objectively out of step with contemporary” national and global standards. Appellant’s Brief at 22.
Slip op. at 4. Lee argued that the recent opinion in Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482 (Pa. Super. 2020), where a three-judge panel of the Superior Court rejected identical constitutional challenges raised by Lee, was wrongly decided. In support, Lee argued that the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), “instruct[ed] that life-without-parole sentences are sufficiently similar to the death penalty that they may be unconstitutional when applied to people with categorically-diminished culpability based on their offense or characteristics.” Slip op. at 5.
As to Lee’s claims under the U.S. Constitution, Superior Court first acknowledged that Rivera, which was decided after Graham, Miller, and Montgomery, was binding precedent absent intervention of a higher court. Superior Court additionally noted that Lee was 26 years old at the time of his crimes, whereas Graham, Miller, and Montgomery concerned juveniles, which are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.” Slip op. at 7, quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 471. Superior Court explained:
…in Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021), the United States Supreme Court limited the holdings of Miller and Montgomery. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court summarized, under Jones, “[a] life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile murderer is [ ] constitutional, and hence no viable Miller claim exists, ‘so long as the sentence is not mandatory — that is, [ ] so long as the sentencer has discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and impose a lesser punishment.’ ” Commonwealth v. Felder, 269 A.3d 1232, 1243 (Pa. 2022), quoting Jones, 141 S.Ct. at 1314. However, as noted above, Appellant was not a juvenile at the time he committed his crimes and, thus, the specific holdings of Miller, Montgomery, and Jones do not apply to him.
Slip op. at 7-8. Superior Court likewise rejected Lee’s state constitutional claims, relying on its decision in Commonwealth v. Henkel, 938 A.2d 433, 446-447 (Pa. Super. 2007) wherein Superior Court held that imposition of a life sentence for second-degree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, and further noted that Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution offers no broader rights than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Dubow suggested the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “revisit whether a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole imposed for all second-degree murder convictions is constitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” opining that:
In light of changes in related case law from other states and research and policy concerns regarding the criminal justice system, it is important to revisit the factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), to determine whether the rights that the Pennsylvania Constitution grants to defendants are still coextensive to the rights that Eighth Amendment grants to defendants, especially in light of the mandatory nature of the life without parole sentence.
If I were not bound by existing case law, I would have remanded the case to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the Edmunds factors.
Concurring slip op. at 1-2.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur, limited to the following issues:
(1) Is [Petitioner’s] mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole unconstitutional under Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania where he was convicted of second-degree murder in which he did not kill or intend to kill and therefore had categorically-diminished culpability, and where Article I, § 13 should provide better protections in those circumstances than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
(2) Is [Petitioner’s] mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where he was convicted of second-degree murder in which he did not kill or intend to kill and therefore had categorically-diminished culpability under the Eighth Amendment?
For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker.