J.S43045/14
2014 PA Super 252
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
IAN THOMAS SEAGRAVES, :
:
Appellant : No. 2758 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 20, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-45-CR-0000298-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
DISSENTING OPINION BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, 2014
I respectfully dissent. While Appellant argues the trial court erred in
focusing solely on decertification factors, his Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement
also avers the court abused its discretion in failing to consider properly
mitigating factors due to his status as a juvenile. In Commonwealth v.
Batts, 620 Pa. 115, 66 A.3d 286 (2013), our Supreme Court discussed
Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed. 407 (2012), in
pertinent part:
The majority [in Miller found] individualized consideration
of mitigating circumstances—particularly youth—was
constitutionally required before the imposition of . . . the
harshest sentence possible for a juvenile. [T]he
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S43045/14
mandatory nature of the life-without-parole sentences at
issue precluded the sentencing court from considering
important factors, such as chronological age, level of
maturity, family and home environment, the circumstances
of the offense, the extent of the juvenile’s participation in
the unlawful conduct, the impact of familial and peer
pressures, the juvenile’s ability to negotiate with police or
prosecutors, and the possibility of rehabilitation. . . .
However, the Supreme Court did not entirely foreclose
the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a
juvenile offender; rather, the majority stated that the
occasion for such a punishment would be
“uncommon,” and, in any event, must first “take into
account how children are different, and how those
differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them
to a lifetime in prison.”
Batts, 620 Pa. at 123, 66 A.3d at 290-91 (emphases added) (citations
omitted).
At resentencing, defense counsel vigorously argued for the possibility
of parole, to permit a future parole board to examine how Appellant’s “life
has progressed.” N.T., 9/20/13, at 6-7. Counsel reasoned that Appellant
may not ever be paroled, but that “to close that door on him [now] is
against what the [C]onstitution stands for based on” Miller. Id. at 7.
The majority cogently summarizes the trial court’s findings with
respect to each of the Miller factors. However, I depart from its analysis
with respect to the finding as to whether Appellant may be amenable to
rehabilitation. In its opinion, the trial court summarized Appellant’s past
contacts with the juvenile system and concluded Appellant “possesses a
limited, if any, capacity for change.” Trial Ct. Op., 11/27/13, at 5
-2-
J. S43045/14
(emphasis added). Although this statement must be considered in context
of the trial court’s lengthy discussion, I believe its equivocality does not
support an irrevocable sentence that prohibits a parole board from ever
reviewing Appellant’s case. I emphasize Miller’s caution that life
imprisonment without parole is “the harshest sentence possible for a
juvenile” and should be an “uncommon” punishment. Batts, 620 Pa. at
123, 66 A.3d at 290-91. Accordingly, I would remand for the trial court to
reconsider the possibility of Appellant’s rehabilitation. See id.
-3-