J

### -S20003-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WILLIAM HINES, 

### Appellant No. 1245 WDA 2017 Appeal

### from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2017 in the Courtof Common Pleas 

### ofAllegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): 

### CP-02-CR-0013322-1970
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: 

### FILEDJUNE

### 03, 

### 2019 William Hines 

### ("Hines") appeals

### from the

### judgment ofsentence imposed 

### after he was resentenced 

### pursuant to 

### Miller v. 

### Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 

### (2012), and

### Montgomeryv. 

### Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016).1,2 We

### affirm. In 1970, Hines 

### brutallyassaulted, raped, and 

### murdered 

### seventeen-year old Eileen

### Taylor

### ("Taylor"). Taylor's nude bodywasdiscovered behind aGiant Eagle store, covered in lacerations and bruises. There were 

### superficial lesions
on her

### throat,bruises on herbreasts, and 

### approximately 100

### puncturewounds

1 The Supreme Court in 

### Miller held 

### that sentencing schemes 

### mandating life in prison

### without parole ("LWOP") 

### for defendantswho 

### committed 

### their crimes while under the age of eighteen 

### violate the Eighth 

### Amendment's prohibition on 

### "cruel and unusual 

### punishments." 

### Miller, 567 U.S. at465.

2TheSupremeCourt in 

### Montgomeryheld

### thatthe

### Millerdecision announced a new 

### substantive rule of 

### constitutional law 

### that applies 

### retroactively. 

### Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 736.J

### -S20003-19

on the left side of her body. A piece of wood found at the scene, tapered at
one end, 

### splintered and sharp, had been 

### forcefully inserted into 

### Taylor, causing severe 

### vaginal 

### mutilation. Police also discovered a stone lodged in the back 

### of Taylor's head, which had 

### fractured her skull and caused it to become concave. An 

### investigation led to Hines's

### arrest. On 

### September 29, 1970, Hines, who was 15 years old at the 

### time, pled 

### guilty to 

### criminal homicide. Following a degree of 

### guilt hearing, held on October 2, 1970, 

### the 

### trial court found Hines 

### guilty of 

### murder in the 

### first degree.3 The

### trialcourtsentenced Hines to a

### mandatory prison

### termof LWOP. Hines appealed, and our Supreme Court 

### ultimately reversed his 

### conviction, vacated his 

### guilty plea, and remanded 

### for a

### jurytrial. See 

### Commonwealth
v. 

### Hines, 437 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 

### 1981). In 1982, a 

### jury convicted Hines of 

### murder in the 

### first degree, and the 

### trial court sentenced him to a 

### mandatory prison 

### term of LWOP. This 

### Courtaffirmed the

### judgmentofsentence, and our Supreme Court denied Hines's Petition 

### for allowance of appeal. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Hines, 491 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 

### 1985). Hines 

### subsequently filed several unsuccessful Petitions 

### for relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA").4 Nonetheless, Hine's most recent PCRA Petition, filed on February 23, 2016, resulted in a resentencing hearing 

### pursuant to 

### Miller. After stating on the record its

3 

### See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 2502(a).

4 

### See42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 9541-9546. 

## -2J

### -S20003-19

considerations in 

### fashioning the new sentence, the 

### trial court resentenced Hines, on July 18, 2017, to 50 years to life in prison, 

### with credit for time served. Hines filed a 

### timely post-sentence Motion, which the 

### trial court denied. 

### Thereafter, Hinesfiled a 

### timely Notice ofAppeal and a 

### court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b) Concise 

### Statement. On appeal, Hines raises the following question 

### for our review: Did the 

### trial court abuse its 

### discretion in imposing a 

### manifestly excessive and unreasonable sentence of 50 years to life [in 

### prison], which 

### far exceeds the 

### minimum term of 35 years under 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 

### 1102.1[(a)(1)], which the 

### court is not bound by, but should give due 

### consideration to in 

### this case, and which did not

### take into account all

### ofthe sentencingfactors under the 

### [S]entencing [C]ode? Brief

### forAppellantat 5. Hines asserts 

### that the 

### trial court failed to consider all 

### relevant, mitigating factors when it resentenced him in excess 

### of the 

### statutory minimum. Brief 

### for Appellant at 

### 24-25. Specifically, Hines claims 

### that the 

### trial court did not 

### adequatelyconsider, among 

### otherthings,

### that "he was able to 

### mature, recover 

### mentally and 

### emotionally from the physical abuse he suffered as a child, learn to manage his anger, and understand the impact, risks and consequences of his 

### actions"while hewas in prison; he began abusing alcohol and illegal substances at age 11, and, 

### until recently, continued to abuse such substances; he achieved a degree 

### from Villanova, attended 

### therapy, learned 

### janitorial skills, and became an 

### artistwhile incarcerated; and he had been 

### fully rehabilitated. 

### Id. at 

### 25-26, 30. 

### Additionally, Hines contends 

### that the 

### trial court failed to consider 

### whether his sentence was the 

### "least stringent necessary to 

### protect

- 3J

### -S20003-19

the

### community and to serve 

### [his] rehabilitative needs...." 

### Id. at 30. 

### Further, Hines claims 

### that the 

### trial court "failed to give any reasons 

### [to support the sentence,] having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and 

### [his] history, character, and 

### condition..." or any 

### other factors 

### "statutorily required under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9721(b) or 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9725." Brief 

### for Appellant at 

### 30-31. Hines's claim challenges 

### the 

### discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Pennington, 751 A.2d 212, 215 (Pa. Super. 

### 2000) (stating 

### that "[an appellant who] claims his sentence is excessive 

### [] does not challenge its 

### legality; rather, he challenges its 

### discretionary aspects."). "Challenges to the 

### discretionary aspects of sentencing do not

### entitlean 

### appellantto review as of

### right." 

### Commonwealth
v. 

### Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. super. 

### 2010). Prior to reaching the 

### merits of a 

### discretionary sentencing issue, it 

### must be 

### determined: (1) 

### whether [Hines] filed a 

### timely notice 

### of appeal, 

### pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 

### 903; (2) 

### whether [Hines] 

### properly preserved 

### [the issue] at sentencing or in a 

### motion to reconsider and 

### modify sentence, 

### pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 

### 720; (3) 

### whether [Hines's] brief has a 

### fatal defect, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2119(f); and (4) 

### whether there is a 

### substantial question 

### that the sentence appealed 

### from is not 

### appropriate underthe Sentencing Code, 

### pursuantto 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9781(b). 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Schrader, 141 A.3d 558, 563 (Pa. Super. 2016) 

### (citations 

### omitted). The record reveals 

### that Hines filed a 

### timely Notice of Appeal, 

### properly preserved the substance of his appeal in a post-sentence Motion, satisfied his 

## -4J

### -S20003-19
obligation under Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2119(f), and raised a 

### substantial question. See 

### Commonwealth v.

### Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 

### 2015) (stating 

### that

### "[t]his Court has held 

### that an excessive sentence 

### claim-in conjunction with an assertion 

### that the 

### court failed to consider 

### mitigating 

### factors-raises a 

### substantial 

### question." (citation

### omitted)). Thus, wewill addressthe 

### merits of Hines's appeal. Our standard of review in an appeal 

### from the 

### discretionary aspects of sentencing is well 

### settled: Sentencing is a 

### matter vested in the sound 

### discretion of the sentencing

### judge, and a sentence will not be 

### disturbed on appeal absent a 

### manifest abuse of 

### discretion. An abuse of 

### discretion is more than 

### just an 

### error in 

### judgment, and, on appeal, the 

### trial court will not be found to have abused its 

### discretion unless the record discloses 

### that the 

### judgment exercised was 

### manifestly unreasonable, orthe result of

### partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill

### -will. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Paul, 925 A.2d 825, 829 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

### (citation and 

### quotation marks 

### omitted). Section 

### 9721(b) requires a 

### courtto

### "followthegeneral principle

### thatthe sentence imposed should 

### [be] consistentwiththe protection ofthe public,the 

### gravity ofthe offense as it relatesto the impact on the life of the 

### victim and
on the 

### community, and 

### the 

### rehabilitative needs 

### of the 

### defendant." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9721(b). Section 

### 9721(b) also directs the 

### court to consider 

### relevant sentencing guidelines whenfashioning a sentence. 

### Id. Section 

### 1102.1(a)(1) requires the imposition of a 35

### -year minimum sentence 

### for a 

### minor who 

### commits 

### murder in the 

### first degree. 18 Pa.C.S.A.


## -5J

### -S20003-19

§ 

### 1102.1(a)(1). Additionally, Section 

### 1102.1(a)(1) permits the imposition of

a life sentence. Section 9725 provides 

### that a 

### court "shall impose a sentence of 

### total confinement if, having regard to the nature and circumstances of

### crime[,] and the 

### history, character, and 

### condition of

### defendant," confinement is necessary because 

### there is an undue risk 

### thatthe defendant will 

### commitanothercrime; the defendant needs 

### correctional 

### treatment that would 

### most 

### effectively be offered by 

### commitment to 

### institution; or a lesser sentence would 

### depreciate theseriousness of

### the crime. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9725. In challenging his sentence, Hines emphasizes 

### that his 

### minimum sentence is 

### greater than 35 years. Brief 

### for Appellant at 25. The 35

### -year sentence mandated by Section 

### 1102.1(a)(1) is a 

### minimum sentence. Section 

### 1102.1(a)(1) authorizes not only a lifesentence, but also LWOP,

### forthecrime Hines 

### committed. Section 1102.1 is inapplicable in 

### this case, as Hines's 

### conviction predates the 

### statute insofar as Section 1102.1 

### pertains to 

### convictions occurring 

### after June 24, 2012. Nonetheless, courts should be guided by the 

### relevant sentencing 

### statutes in fashioning a sentence. 

### See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Batts, 163 A.3d 

### 410, 458 (Pa. 

### 2017); 

### see 

### also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 9721(b). Hines's sentence of 50 years to life in prison 

### fits squarely within the guidelines provided by Section 

### 1102.1(a)(1). Accordingly, Hines's 

### argument 

### that his sentence is excessive is 

### without merit. See 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 

### 2004)(providing 

### that a sentence 

### that

- 6 -J

### -S20003-19

falls below the 

### maximum sentence 

### for a crime cannot be excessive). Thus,
we cannot afford Hines 

### relief on

### this basis. Hines also asserts 

### that the 

### trial court did not give due 

### consideration to his alleged 

### rehabilitation, or 

### other mitigating factors. At the resentencing hearing, Hines presented the 

### testimony of Alice 

### Applegate, Ph.D. 

### ("Dr. 

### Applegate"), a 

### forensic psychologist,who 

### testified 

### that,aftercompleting

a psychological 

### evaluation of Hines, she could say

### that he

### "has used his 

### many years [in prison] to 

### rehabilitate himself. He is an 

### artist. He has done murals

... is a past 

### athlete

... and he's become a 

### student. [H]e has used the past 47 years to 

### mature, to change, to grow and to come to this point. He is 

### rehabilitated." N.T., 

### 7/18/17, 34. 

### Additionally, Hines relies on his own 

### testimony 

### that he 

### "grew up," is 

### "sorry for killing the person 

### [he's] in prison 

### for,"and 

### doesn't"see 

### [the

### victim] as an

### enemy" in 

### orderto 

### bolster his position 

### that incarceration is no longer necessary.5 Brief 

### forAppellant at 30. Hines 

### further contends 

### that the 

### trial court failed to consider the nature and circumstances ofthecrime, aswell as Hines's 

### history, characterand

### condition. Brief

### forAppellantat 

### 30-31. The record belies Hines's 

### argument. To the 

### contrary, the 

### trial court considered both

### the nature ofthe crime and the impact it had on the

### victim's

5 We note

### that although Hines 

### highlights Dr.

### Applegate'sfavorable 

### testimony, the 

### trial court also heard 

### testimony from Dr. Applegate as to Hines's recent and 

### continuous 

### "misconducts" at the prison, including raping 

### other inmates, disobeying orders, 

### fighting, possessing a shiv and 

### metal pipe, and using solvents. 

### See N.T., 

### 7/18/17, 38. 

## -7J

### -S20003-19
family. See N.T., 

### 7/18/17, 80, 

### 81-82 (wherein the 

### trial court stated 

### that it "considered again 

### the nature ofthe 

### offense," as well as the 

### testimony from the 

### victim's family as to the 

### "long-lasting effect 

### that this case has had 

### [] on 

### them,"and thedetailed

### testimonyfromthe police

### officerwhowas atthe scene of

### crime);

### see

### alsoid. at 7-15 

### (whereinthe

### victim'sfamily memberstestified
as to the deep depression 

### of the 

### victim's parents, 

### their undergoing mental health proceduresand 

### therapy, the

### family'seventual relocationoutside ofthe 

### community, and the 

### premature death and 

### job loss of 

### the 

### victim's father following the

### victim's rape and 

### murder). The 

### court also considered 

### testimony from Hines's 

### friends and 

### family regarding hischanged 

### character,articulable achievementswhile incarcerated, socio-economicbackground, and 

### familial upbringing. See 

### id. at 80 

### (wherein the

### trialcourt stated

### that it

### "has considered 

### [Hines's] ageat the

### time

### thatthis offense was 

### committed, [his] culpabilityfor the offense

... 

### [and] his 

### abilityto change. In evidence 

### [], he's changed. Some of it

### very positive. Some of it not so positive. 

### It appears 

### that he's made 

### effective use of the 

### time 

### that he spent in 

### prison."); see 

### also id. at 

### 81-82 (wherein the 

### trial court stated 

### that it considered Hines's background and 

### achievements outlined in the Memorandum in aid 

### ofsentencing, aswell as 

### testimony regarding the impact of the case on Hines's 

### family); id. at 51 (discussing Hines's 

### personality development); 

### id. at 54 (discussing 

### the "racial 

### strife and 

### conflict in 

### Homewood,"where Hineswas 

### raised); 

### id. at 57 (discussing Hines's academic


## -8J

### -S20003-19

and 

### artistic advancements); 

### id. at 62 (discussing Hines's 

### upbringing and 

### familytroubles). Additionally, the 

### trial court considered both the 

### expert testimony and 

### evaluations of Dr. Applegate. 

### See 

### id. at 

### 80-81. Lastly, the 

### trial court reviewed a Memorandum in aid of 

### sentencing, prepared by Hines, and relied
on its substance in resentencing Hines. 

### See 

### id. at 78 

### (wherein the court 

### temporarily recessed 

### from the resentencing hearing in 

### order to "go over the 

### Memorandum[,]

... [as it was] 

### fairly lengthy with some 

### exhibits"); see

### also id. at 82 

### (whereinthe

### trial court specifically mentions its

### consideration of

### the information contained in Hines's 

### Memorandum). A review ofthe record 

### demonstrates 

### thatthe 

### trial court referenced the 

### appropriate sentencing guidelines, made the 

### requisite inquiries and 

### considerations, includingevidencefavorableto Hines, and imposed a sentence 

### that not 

### only is 

### appropriate given the seriousness 

### of the crime, but also is 

### clearly permissible underthe law. As such, we

### cannotfind 

### thatthe 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion, and 

### affirm the

### judgment ofsentence. 

### Judgment of sentence 

### affirmed. Judgment Entered.

## 7.,,ezetr,r1PJ seph D. 

### Seletyn, Es 

### Prothonotary

Date: 

### 6/3/2019 

## -9