Com. v. Jones, L. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-S04043-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,             :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :          PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee                 :
    :
    v.                    :
    :
    LEVAR LEONARD JONES,                      :
    :
    Appellant                :    No. 1442 MDA 2014
    Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 11, 2014
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
    Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003302-1994
    BEFORE:     BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.:                 FILED APRIL 13, 2016
    This matter comes before us on remand from the Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court, following its entry of an order vacating our affirmance of the
    dismissal of the petition filed by Levar Leonard Jones (Appellant) pursuant to
    the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.      We now
    reverse the PCRA court’s order, vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence,
    and remand for resentencing.
    In 1995, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without
    possibility of parole following his conviction for second-degree murder based
    upon events that took place when Appellant was 14 years old.       The order
    from which Appellant appealed denied his request for PCRA relief based upon
    the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct.
    *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S04043-15
    2455 (2012).      In that case, the Court held unconstitutional mandatory
    sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole imposed upon
    individuals who were juveniles at the time they committed homicides. The
    PCRA court determined that Appellant did not properly invoke the newly-
    recognized-constitutional-right exception to the PCRA’s one-year timeliness
    requirement provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii) because our Supreme
    Court held in Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 
    81 A.3d 1
    , 11 (Pa. 2013),
    that Miller does not apply retroactively.          We affirmed based upon
    Cunningham. Commonwealth v. Jones, 
    120 A.3d 1067
     (Pa. Super. 2015)
    (unpublished memorandum).
    While Appellant’s subsequent petition for allowance of appeal to our
    Supreme   Court    was   pending,   the   U.S.   Supreme    Court    decided   in
    Montgomery v. Louisiana, 
    136 S.Ct. 718
     (2016), that Miller announced a
    new substantive rule of law which applies retroactively.      On February 24,
    2016, our Supreme Court entered a per curiam order granting Appellant’s
    petition for allowance of appeal, vacating this Court’s order, and remanding
    for further proceedings consistent with Montgomery. Commonwealth v.
    Jones, No. 313 MAL 2015, 
    2016 WL 732094
    , (Pa. Feb. 24, 2016).
    Under     Miller,   Montgomery,       and    this   Court’s    decision   in
    Commonwealth v. Secreti, 
    2016 Pa. Super. 28
    , 
    2016 WL 513341
     at *5
    (Pa. Super. February 9, 2016), Appellant is entitled to PCRA relief in the
    form of resentencing following judicial consideration of appropriate age-
    -2-
    J-S04043-15
    related factors.   See Commonwealth v. Batts, 
    66 A.3d 286
    , 297 (Pa.
    2013).1
    Order reversed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for
    resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judge Allen did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
    judgment order.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 4/13/2016
    1
    [A]t a minimum [the sentencing court] should consider a
    juvenile’s age at the time of the offense, his diminished
    culpability and capacity for change, the circumstances of the
    crime, the extent of his participation in the crime, his family,
    home and neighborhood environment, his emotional maturity
    and development, the extent that familial and/or peer pressure
    may have affected him, his past exposure to violence, his drug
    and alcohol history, his ability to deal with the police, his
    capacity to assist his attorney, his mental health history, and his
    potential for rehabilitation.
    Batts, 66 A.3d at 297 (quoting Commonwealth v. Knox, 
    50 A.3d 732
    , 745
    (Pa. Super. 2012)).
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1442 MDA 2014

Filed Date: 4/13/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/13/2016