High court to review mandatory sentence

Second degree murder carries penalty of life without parole under current state statute

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in mid-February granted a petition asking it to consider whether the mandatory sentence for murder in the second degree -- life without parole -- is unconstitutional under both state and federal law.

The decision, made public in a Supreme Court order issued Feb. 16, received immediate support from at least two Blair County defense attorneys.

Pennsylvania's felony murder statute "absolutely needs to be reviewed," stated attorney Thomas M. Dickey, who has tried many murder cases during his 40-year career.

Dickey's enthusiastic support of the decision by the state's highest court also received a second from Blair County's Public Defender, Russell Mongomery.

"I think it's a good thing that the Supreme Court reviews second degree murder. You can be an accessory in a crime. You can have very little involvement and still face life, so I think the mandatory life sentence should be reviewed," Montgomery stated when quizzed about the pending Supreme Court action.

Case under review

The case to be reviewed stems from an attempted robbery and murder which occurred nearly a decade ago in Allegheny County.

Derek Lee, now 36, was charged after he and another man, Paul Durham, entered the Elliot neighborhood home where Leonard Butler lived with a paramour and a child.

Both men were carrying guns and persistently urged Butler to "give up the money," the state Superior Court reported in its recent opinion.

The appeals court synopsis of the case indicated the men separated the people in the home with Lee tending to the woman and the child while his accomplice took Butler to the basement.

A struggle occurred and Butler was shot to death.

A jury found both men guilty of second-degree murder, and Lee, who did not kill Butler, received life without parole -- the same sentence as Durham, who pulled the trigger.

The incident at the Butler home is a primer for the issues being raised before the state's highest court.

The two men were in the process of committing a felony when a death occurred -- thus the definition of felony murder in Pennsylvania.

The question that has been raised for years is whether the person who committed the killing and an accomplice stand equally before the court when it comes to sentencing, or does the nonshooter, for instance, have lesser culpability?

No distinction between actions

Pennsylvania law does not draw a distinction and does not allow the judge in such a case to draw a distinction because the sentencing statute for second-degree murder is mandatory life without parole.

Dickey gave an example, supposing a 19-year-old was approached by a friend who said he was going to rob someone and asked the teen to drive him to the supposed victim's home, offering him 20% of the take.

The 19-year-old agrees, but during the robbery someone dies.

Arguably the nonshooter has a lesser culpability that the actual killer, Dickey posed in his example, and that is the question that the Lee case brings before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will address whether Lee's mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the state constitution, thus providing better protections for the accused than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment for those accused of crime.

The caveat is the accomplice "did not kill or intend to kill and therefore had categorically-diminished culpability," according to the question to be considered.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the Lee case and on June 13, 2023, it rejected his argument that the Pennsylvania Constitution offered broader protection against excessive sentences than the Eighth Amendment.

The Superior Court also noted that the mandatory life-without-parole sentence for second-degree murder has been reviewed before -- without success.

Brief points out disparities

However, in asking the Supreme Court to review the issue once again, Lee's attorneys included a friend-of-the-court brief which noted that Pennsylvania's mandatory life-without-

parole sentence has created a situation that is "disproportionate, racially-based and unconstitutional."

The brief that was filed by the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research and Families Against Mandatory Minimums emphasized the state's felony murder laws are not only "egregiously out of step" with statutes dealing with felony murder in other states, but also impacts Pennsylvanians of color disproportionately.

The brief stated that an estimated 1,100 inmates in Pennsylvania's state correctional institutions are serving life without parole for second-degree murder.

They are people, the brief stated, "who did not take a life, did not intend to take a life and had no expectation that a life would be taken."

Eighty percent of those inmates are people of color, the brief pointed out.

"The status quo in Pennsylvania cannot be tolerated: hundreds of people of color have been sentenced to die in prison in this Commonwealth despite never having intended to take a life. Review of the parole-

eligibility statute that permits that outcome is greatly needed," the legal brief stated.

One of the lead attorneys in the Lee case is Quinn Alexander Cozzens of the Abolitionist Law Center in Pittsburgh, which has as its purpose "to end race-based mass incarceration."

He said the Lee defense team was pleasantly surprised by the Supreme's Court's decision.

His organization now must file its brief in Lee's appeal by March 27.

The Allegheny County District Attorney will have a chance to answer the defense brief and oral argument will be held in October.

Ruling could come

by year's end

There could be a ruling by the end of the year, Cozzens suggested.

The high court, if it rules for the defense, could order resentencing of those serving life without parole, or the court could simply make parole available, he said.

Dickey said he's "no bleeding-heart liberal," but he emphasized that in his experience judges don't like mandatory sentences.

"There is some thought to get rid of this lack of discretion. We have to take a look at the fact that (a defendant) did not kill a guy. ... Let the judge decide," he stated.

Dickey made another point. The accomplice who did not kill someone won't escape punishment.

He will still face the court charged with a felony, and that felony could result in a sentence of 20, 30 or 40 years.

Dickey concluded, "I am certainly going to keep my eye on it (the outcome)."

Blair County cases

Blair County has several individuals doing life without parole for second-degree murder.

William Thompson, 42, remains behind bars for the stabbing deaths of Raymond and Marjorie Bracken, a home invasion robbery that occurred 22 years ago. He maintained he was not the killer but police have been unable to link anyone else to the murders.

Christopher J. Aikens, 56, in an attempted escape from Blair County Central Court in 2021, grabbed a gun from a corrections officer, Rhonda Russell, and held her hostage. A police officer responded and shot at Aikens, but the bullet killed Russell.

Christopher Yon, 47, in 1999 killed a neighbor, 74-year-old Arlene Piper, after entering her home during the night through a window. Yon, allegedly mentally disadvantaged, used a pillow to keep her from screaming. He testified he never meant to hurt Piper.

Thompson and Yon are incarcerated at SCI Houtzdale. Aikens is in SCI Frackville.

Lee is in SCI Smithfield in Huntingdon County.