Altoona native William Darwin Thompson, 44, in a federal petition, last July challenged his conviction and life without parole sentence for the stabbing deaths of an elderly Altoona couple during a robbery that occurred 24 years ago.

Thompson’s appeal presently is being reviewed by a federal magistrate judge, Richard A. Lanzillo of Pittsburgh, who has ordered Blair County to respond to Thompson’s petition.

But, as pointed out this week by Blair County Assistant District Attorney Julia B. Wilt, preparing a response has become more difficult due to a March 26 opinion issued by Debra Todd, the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, that declared the life without parole sentence that Thompson received is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

Todd, who was joined in her opinion by the other members of the Supreme Court, ruled that Pennsylvania’s sentencing scheme for second-degree murder, also known as felony murder, “lacks penological justification.”

“Ultimately, we find that the mandatory sentencing scheme for second degree murder poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment, and, thus, find it to be cruel,” Todd wrote.

The penalty for second-degree murder of life without parole in all cases fails to take into consideration that an accomplice to a robbery for instance may not have had any intent to murder a victim but faces a life sentence because of the actions of the person who actually committed the murder, the Todd decision concluded.

Such was the case presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review.

Pittsburgh residents Derek Lee and Paul Durham decided on Oct. 14, 2014, to rob Leonard Butler in his home, located in the city’s Elliott neighborhood.

Butler and the family were taken to the basement of the home and held at gunpoint by Durham while Lee went to the upstairs area in an effort to find money.

Butler and Durham began to struggle and the gun went off, killing Butler.

Upon arrest, both Lee and Durham were convicted of second degree murder and both were sentenced to life without parole.

Lee’s appeal, as the non-shooter, was accepted for review by the Supreme Court two years ago.

The ruling on March 26 that found Pennsylvania’s felony murder sentence unconstitutional affects several hundred inmates who are now serving life without parole sentences, according to a list provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

And, the impact on the prison system is a question that must be addressed.

Another major question that as yet remains undecided is whether the ruling applies retroactively.

Does it apply for instance to those cases — like Thompson’s — where the life without parole sentence was imposed almost 20 years ago?

Or, will those many inmates affected have to be resentenced — possibly receiving a “minimum” sentence and thereby granting the inmate the possibility of parole?

Todd in her opinion was aware of these questions.

Her opinion stated, “However, cognizant of the impact our decision today (March 26) will have, we stay our mandate for 120 days in order to provide a reasonable amount of time for the General Assembly to consider appropriate remedial measures.”

Gov. Josh Shapiro, a former Pennsylvania Attorney General, supported the Supreme Court decision, stating, “I have long believed this law is unjust and wrong. As governor, I took legal action on this case arguing to strike down this sentencing framework.

“Common sense and true justice dictate we need different penalties for different conduct. For example, the getaway driver shouldn’t get the same sentence as the person who pulls the trigger,” he stated.

He supports action to clarify the issues.

Wilt, in a petition filed Thursday, asked Magistrate Judge Lanzillo for additional time to prepare the response to Thompson’s challenge to his consecutive murder — two sentences imposed by now-retired Blair County Judge Hiram A. Carpenter in 2007.

Thompson, in his federal petition, argues that the evidence linking him to the March 2002 stabbing deaths of Raymond, 83, and Marjorie Bracken, 81, was insufficient to convict him of second-degree murder.

His defense counsel argued there was no evidence that placed him at the scene of the killing.

There was no DNA or fingerprints that tied him to the murders.

A muddy footprint, however, was found, but it did not match the shoes Thompson allegedly wore the night of the murder.

His then-girlfriend, though, linked him to a ring with a green stone that he allegedly brought to her home.

That ring was identified as belonging to Mr. Bracken.

In her response, Wilt noted the difficulty of finding the records of the Thompson case.

But, she also pointed out that because of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, it is possible that Thompson has not exhausted his appeals at the state level.

“A determination of retroactivity could potentially affect (Thompson’s) ability to seek sentencing relief under Pennsylvania’s Post-conviction Collateral Relief Act, meaning all his state claims would not be exhausted,” Wilt stated.

She stressed that federal district courts must dismiss petitions that involve both resolved and unresolved questions.

Thompson is serving his time at the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale.