Appellate court hears argument in juvenile lifer’s resentencing

When an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge resentenced a juvenile offender in November to serve 13 to 26 years in prison for first-degree murder, the prosecution said he handed down an illegal sentence.

That’s because, Deputy District Attorney Michael Streily argued Wednesday to the state Superior Court, under Pennsylvania statute, a person convicted of first-degree murder must receive a maximum prison term of life. Although the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama found mandatory life without parole for juveniles to be unconstitutional, it did not change that underlying premise, he said.

“The max is still a term of life,” Mr. Streily said. “All you have to do is provide them with an opportunity for parole.”

Regis Seskey was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994 for the shooting death of a man over a $100 drug debt. He was 17 years old at the time of the crime.

Under Miller and another case, Montgomery v. Louisiana, like about 500 other juvenile lifers across Pennsylvania, Seskey became eligible for resentencing.

Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III, after hearing testimony, went against the prosecution’s recommendation of a maximum term of life in prison and set the man’s punishment at 13 to 26 years,

making him immediately eligible for parole.

Judge Williams, in his opinion in the Seskey case, said the defendant was entitled to an individualized sentence, as required by Miller. That, he wrote, included individualized sentences for both the minimum and maximum prison terms.

Further, he agreed with a federal court that found that simply passing the actual decision in resentencings off to the state parole board — as Mr. Streily suggests — “reflects an abdication of judicial responsibility and ignores the Miller mandate.”

But Mr. Streily argued that the parole board is competent, and that these cases are no different from others it hears.

“When this came back to Judge Williams, he was free to determine a minimum term of years, and he was free to determine if this defendant would be eligible for parole,” Mr. Streily argued. “It is a simple case.”

But Abe Delnore, who argued to the three-judge appellate court on behalf of Seskey, said the current Pennsylvania statute Mr. Streily relies on requiring a life maximum does not apply to juvenile offenders.

Superior Court Judge Judith Olson disagreed.

“Nothing in Miller says a juvenile cannot get life in prison. So there’s nothing unconstitutional about sentencing a juvenile to life in prison,” she said.

“The problem here is there simply is not a statute that can be applied,” Mr. Delnore said.

That problem, he continued, could be addressed by the Legislature taking action, which has happened in other states.

“Pennsylvania is in a dilemma, and it’s a difficult one to deal with,” he said.

Mr. Delnore noted that six other Common Pleas courts across Pennsylvania have done as Judge Williams and resentenced defendants to something less than life for their maximum penalties.

But Judge Olson responded that the Superior Court is not bound by that.

She agreed with both parties, though, that it is a “very important case.”