Com. v. Shabazz-Davis, R. ( 2018 )

J-A08040-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT SHABAZZ-DAVIS :
: No. 2525 EDA 2015
Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007330-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 29, 2018
In view of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s October 12, 2017, Order
which granted the Petition for Allowance of Appeal of Robert Shabazz-Davis
(“Appellant”), vacated this Court’s disposition of this matter and remanded for
reconsideration in light of its decision in Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d
410 (Pa. June 26, 2017), we conclude that the reasons the trial court provided
prior to imposing the judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole upon Appellant were insufficient to show that it “reach[ed]
a conclusion, supported by competent evidence, that [Appellant] will forever
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08040-17
be incorrigible, without any hope for rehabilitation.” Id. at 435.1 Therefore,
Appellant’s sentence is illegal, and, accordingly, we remand this matter to the
trial court for resentencing in light of Batts.
Case remanded for resentencing. Superior Court jurisdiction
relinquished.
____________________________________________
1 Specifically, the Court held the following:
For sentencing purposes, there is a presumption against the
imposition of a sentence of life without parole for a defendant
convicted of first-degree murder committed as a juvenile. The
Commonwealth must give reasonable notice of its intention to
seek a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. To rebut
the presumption, the Commonwealth has the burden to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile offender is
permanently incorrigible and thus is unable to be rehabilitated.
Consistent with the mandate of Miller and Montgomery, for a
life-without-parole sentence to be constitutionally valid, the
sentencing court must find that the juvenile offender is
permanently incorrigible and that rehabilitation would be
impossible. The Commonwealth's evidence and the sentencing
court's decision must take into account the factors announced in
and section 1102.1(d) of the Crimes Code. Even if the
Commonwealth satisfies its burden of proof, the sentencing court
is not required to impose a life-without-parole sentence upon a
juvenile offender.
In sentencing a juvenile offender to life with the possibility
of parole, traditional sentencing considerations apply. See 42
Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). The sentencing court should fashion the
minimum term of incarceration using, as guidance, section
1102.1(a) of the Crimes Code.
Batts, ___ Pa. at ___, 163 A.3d at 459–60.
-2-
J-A08040-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/29/18
-3-