For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2 - 33

we are required to treat Felder's 50-year minimum as a life
sentence " because such a sentence " does not obviously
extend to the life expectancy of the juvenile " and it " does
not clearly exceed life expectancy. " 24
The Superior Court
never explained why it was " obvious " that 50 years is not
a life sentence nor did it explain why it did not " clearly "
exceed Felder's life expectancy.
the Superior Court evaluated whether a
45 year to life sentence constituted an impermissible de
facto life sentence. The Superior Court panel affirmed
the sentence by placing the burden on the defendant. It
concluded " that Appellant has simply failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating that the lower court sentenced
him to a de facto LWOP sentence. " 26
is inconsistent with Batts II.
In Bebout,25
Jones explicitly held that state had the authority to
establish procedures for sentencing juveniles convicted of
murder and could make those procedures broader than
though required under the Eighth Amendment:
Such burden shifting
Because the Superior Court was incapable of providing
any guidance regarding what constituted a de facto life
sentence, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stepped in on
June 19, 2018, and granted review of the de facto life
sentence issue in Felder.27
2021-2022 - Jones to Felder
Felder was argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court on September 11, 2019. Before it could be decided,
however, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari in Jones v. Mississippi.28
was originally given a mandatory life sentence but it
was remanded for resentencing in light of Miller. At the
resentencing hearing, the judge imposed a discretionary
life sentence. The United States Supreme Court granted
review to determine if the resentencing court in imposing
a life sentence must make a separate factual finding
Importantly,
like Miller and Montgomery,
The defendant in Jones
our holding today does not preclude the States
from imposing additional sentencing limits in
cases involving defendants under 18 convicted
of murder. States may categorically prohibit
life without parole for all offenders under 18.
Or States may require sentencers to make extra
factual findings before sentencing an offender
under 18 to life without parole. Or States may
direct sentencers to formally explain on the
record why a life-without-parole sentence is
appropriate notwithstanding the defendant's
youth. States may also establish rigorous
proportionality or other substantive appellate
review of life-without-parole sentences. All of
those options, and others, remain available to
the States.29
After the United States Supreme Court decided Jones,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the parties in
Felder to file supplemental briefs. Both the prosecution
Vol. 7, Issue 2 l For The Defense 33
that the defendant was permanently incorrigible. The
United States Supreme Court held that such a factual
determination, either explicit or implicit, was not
required. Instead, Jones read Miller and Montgomery to
only require a discretionary sentencing procedure where
the judge is aware that the defendant was a juvenile and
had the discretion to impose a lesser punishment than life
imprisonment.
For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 7, Issue 2
