State Supreme Court ruling stops possible parole for juvenile murderers
By Adam Brandolph
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, 7:24 p.m.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that juvenile murderers who were automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole will not be resentenced if their cases were final before June 2012.
In a 4-3 ruling split along party lines, the long-awaited decision by the Republican-heavy court means that roughly 460 inmates in Pennsylvania prisons may never get parole.
“It is the Commonwealth's core position that (an) appellant's claim must be decided under the law as it stood at the time his conviction became final,” Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote in the majority opinion. Saylor was joined by Justices J. Michael Eakin, Correale F. Stevens and Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille.
In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for offenders under the age of 18 violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because they fail to take into account the unique characteristics of young offenders, including their “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform.”
Pennsylvania's highest court upheld that ruling in March by vacating the sentence of a Northampton County man convicted of killing a man when he was 14 and sending the case back to a lower court for resentencing.
They did not rule on whether their decision would apply to cases that were still on appeal.
The case before the state Supreme Court — argued last August — involved Ian Cunningham, a Philadelphia man who was 17 in 1999 when he shot and killed a man during a robbery. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2002 and received a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.
In the minority opinion, Justice Max Baer — joined by Justices Debra Todd and Seamus McCaffery — said the ruling should apply retroactively, but noted it “should not be interpreted as a suggestion that life without parole should not be imposed on this appellant or any other juvenile murder.”
The decision should be “in the discretion of a trial judge observing the facts of the case and the characteristics of the defendant to determine whether life without parole is appropriate,” they said.
Dan Fitzsimmons, chief trial deputy for the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, said he supported the court's decision, saying resentencing would reopen the wounds of victims' families. “This is great solace to victims' families that they don't have to be put through that.”
Legal experts said the case is likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court as courts in other states have allowed the retroactivity.
“The fact that there is mixed law in the states and mixed law in the lower courts only heightens the probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this conflict,” said University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff. “This isn't the end of the issue. I'm sure it will go up.”
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Garden Q&A: Firecracker vine OK for trellis?
- Kovacevic: Still waiting on Malkin, Crosby
- Rossi: Lack of together time showing for Penguins’ defense
- Fleury a bright spot among struggling Penguins in playoffs
- Change in kidney allocation rules should help patients
- Talent on ice, effort off it help franchise grow hockey in Columbus
- Pastors offer help in days following Franklin Regional stabbings
- Gov. Corbett’s re-election campaign ‘unflappable’ amid challenges, criticism
- Mailings from Pa. incumbents to potential new constituents under fire
- Murrysville woman shares her many tales as a professional storyteller
- Blue Jackets, city relish first playoff victory