J-S29010-21

2022 PA Super 51

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

PARRIS LAVON HARPER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 166 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 20, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0001419-1998

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2022

This case calls upon us to revisit the proper sentencing of a juvenile 

convicted of second-degree murder. Specifically, we are asked to determine 

whether a sentence of thirty-five years to life is legal, and if so, whether the 

trial court abused its discretion in fashioning the sentence. In performing this 

analysis, we discuss the impact of the recent decision in Commonwealth v. 

Felder, 18 EAP 2018 (Pa. filed Feb. 23, 2022). After a careful review, we 

affirm.

On December 11, 1997, Parris Lavon Harper pointed a gun at the neck 

of David Purvis. At the time of the incident, Harper was less than one month 

away from his eighteenth birthday. With the gun pointed at Purvis, Harper 

stated, “give me what you got,” ostensibly referring to drugs that Purvis had 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29010-21

- 2 -

in his possession. Purvis then ran and Harper fired his gun several times. 

Purvis suffered three gunshot wounds and died as a result.

On June 17, 1999, at the conclusion of a jury trial, Harper was found 

guilty of second-degree murder and robbery. The court sentenced Harper to

life imprisonment without parole on August 3, 1999. On June 14, 2017, the 

trial court vacated the life sentence pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 

460 (2012) (holding that mandatory sentences of life without parole for 

juvenile offenders violate the Eighth Amendment).

On September 20, 2018, after several hearings, the trial court 

resentenced Harper to serve a term of incarceration of thirty-five years to life.

Harper filed a timely post-sentence motion. The trial court held a hearing and 

ultimately denied the motion on December 12, 2018. This timely appeal 

followed.1

Harper presents three issues in his appeal. The first two issues attack 

the legality of his sentence. His final issue raises a challenge to the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence.

____________________________________________

1 Although Harper purported to appeal from the order denying his postsentence motion, the appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence 

entered on September 20, 2018. We have corrected the caption accordingly. 

See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 

2001) (en banc) (explaining that in a criminal action, appeal properly lies from 

the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions).
J-S29010-21

- 3 -

Harper first argues that his minimum sentence of 35 years is a de facto

sentence of life without parole (“LWOP”). He contends United States and 

Pennsylvania precedent require that, unless the Commonwealth can establish 

beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile is incapable of rehabilitation, the 

juvenile must be accorded the opportunity to be released with the chance for 

a meaningful and fulfilling life. In essence, the question before us is at what 

point does a minimum term-of-years sentence become a de facto life 

sentence?

We have determined that a claim that the trial court imposed an 

impermissible de facto life sentence in violation of Miller constitutes a 

challenge to the legality of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Clary, 226 A.3d 

571, 580 (Pa. Super. 2020). A challenge to the legality of sentence is an attack 

upon the power of a court to impose a given sentence. See Commonwealth 

v. Lipinski, 841 A.2d 537, 539 (Pa. Super. 2004). Legality of sentence issues 

occur generally either (1) when a trial court’s traditional authority to use 

discretion in the act of sentencing is somehow affected; and/or (2) when the 

sentence imposed is patently inconsistent with the sentencing parameters set 

forth by the General Assembly. See Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332, 

342 (Pa. 2011). The question of whether a claim implicates the legality of a 

sentence presents a pure question of law. See id. at 340 n.13. Issues relating 

to the legality of a sentence are reviewed de novo, and our scope of review is 
J-S29010-21

- 4 -

plenary. See Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super. 

2013).

A trial court may not impose a term-of-years sentence on a juvenile 

convicted of homicide that equates to a de facto LWOP sentence unless it 

finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the juvenile is incapable of 

rehabilitation. See Clary, 226 A.3d at 581. We have distinguished between 

sentences that constitute de facto LWOP sentences and those that do not. See 

Commonwealth v. Foust, 180 A.3d 416, 438 (Pa. Super. 2018). Specifically, 

in Foust, we determined that while a 150–year sentence is the equivalent of 

a de facto LWOP sentence, a 30-years to life sentence does not constitute a 

de facto LWOP sentence. See id.

In guiding our determinations regarding particular minimum sentences,

we have observed that a sentence is not a de facto LWOP sentence where 

there is “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on 

demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Commonwealth v. Bebout, 186 

A.3d 462, 467 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Therefore, “it must at 

least be plausible that one could survive until the minimum release date with 

some consequential likelihood that a non-trivial amount of time at liberty 

awaits.” Id. at 468 (emphasis in original). Conversely, if no meaningful 

opportunity for parole exists, the sentence constitutes a de facto LWOP 

sentence. See id. Accordingly, we have considered the age the appellant 
J-S29010-21

- 5 -

would be eligible for parole to determine whether the sentence is the 

functional equivalent of LWOP. See id.

In Clary, we offered the following summary of several of our decisions 

that addressing concerns that the minimum sentence imposed amounted to a 

de facto sentence of LWOP:

In Commonwealth v. Anderson, 224 A.3d 40, 47-48 (Pa. 

Super. 2019), a post-Miller case, the appellant received a 

sentence of 50 years’ to life imprisonment upon resentencing. 

[See Anderson, 224 A.3d at 41-42]. Because Anderson was 17 

years old at the time he began serving his sentence, he would, 

thus, be eligible for parole at age 67. Id. at [46-47]. We, 

therefore, concluded that his sentence was not the functional 

equivalent of LWOP. Id. at 47-48. See also Bebout, supra at 

468 (concluding the appellant’s 45 years to life sentence in which 

he would be eligible for parole at the age of 60 was not de facto

LWOP); Commonwealth v. Lekka, 210 A.3d 343, 357-358 (Pa. 

Super. 2019) (concluding that because the appellant’s term of 45 

years’ to life imprisonment rendered him eligible for parole at the 

age of 62, it was not a de facto LWOP sentence); Foust, supra

at 438, 441 (concluding that the appellant’s two consecutive 30 

year to life sentences were not a de facto LWOP sentence and 

noting that even considering [the a]ppellant’s aggregate 

sentence, he had a chance of being released into society in his 

70s).

Clary, 226 A.3d at 581. Further, in Clary, we determined that because the 

appellant was eligible for parole for his first-degree murder conviction at the 

age of 58, he had a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release,” and his 

sentence could not be considered de facto LWOP. Id. at 582.

Applying these considerations here, we likewise conclude that Harper 

did not receive a de facto LWOP sentence. The record reflects Harper 
J-S29010-21

- 6 -

committed the murder in December 1997, which was just prior to his 

eighteenth birthday on January 9, 1998. Harper was convicted and sentenced 

in the summer of 1999, when he was 19 years old. Initially, he received a 

mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. On September 20, 2018, he was 

resentenced to a term of 35 years to life. Accordingly, Harper will be 

approximately 54 years old when his minimum sentence expires, and he 

becomes eligible for parole. Therefore, Harper has a meaningful opportunity 

to obtain release at the age of 54 and there is a likelihood that a non-trivial 

amount of time at liberty awaits. Accordingly, his claim that the minimum 

term amounts to a de facto LWOP sentence lacks merit.

In addition, we observe that while this appeal was pending, our Supreme 

Court issued the decision in Commonwealth v. Felder, 18 EAP 2018, 2022 

Pa.Lexis 184, 2022 WL 529338 (Pa. filed February 23, 2022), which adds 

further support to our conclusion that this issue lacks merit. In Felder, the 

appellant was a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder and initially received 

a sentence of LWOP. See id. 2022 WL 529338 at *4-5. After the filing of

Miller, the appellant was resentenced to serve a term of incarceration of fifty 

years to life. See id. at *5. Eventually, our Supreme Court granted allowance 

of appeal to address “whether a discretionary term-of-years sentence may be 

so long as to amount to a de facto life sentence, thereby triggering the 

substantive and procedural protections afforded by Miller and its progeny.” 

Id. at *3.
J-S29010-21

- 7 -

In reaching its decision, the Felder Court reviewed the current state of 

the law since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. 

Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021), and concluded that “even if a 50-yearsto-life sentence amounts to a de facto life sentence, there is no Miller problem 

here.” Id. at *30 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court made the 

following summarization of the law:

[I]f a discretionary sentencing scheme is constitutionally sufficient 

to permit the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a 

juvenile homicide offender, so too can a court impose a sentence 

that is something less than life without parole. This includes a 

term-of-years sentence that may amount to a de facto life 

sentence. Stated differently, as long as the sentence was the 

product of a discretionary sentencing system that included 

consideration of the juvenile’s youth, the Eighth Amendment is 

satisfied.

Id. at *30-31. Here, there is no question the minimum term-of-years 

sentence imposed upon Harper was the product of a discretionary sentencing 

system, which included consideration of his youth. For this reason, too, 

Harper’s claim fails.

Harper next argues the imposition of a mandatory maximum sentence 

of life is illegal under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. 

Specifically, he asserts the sentencing scheme fails to offer an individualized 

sentence to a juvenile. Harper further claims that although he may be paroled 

at some point, he will remain under extensive monitoring for his lifetime, 

which could result in additional incarceration.
J-S29010-21

- 8 -

In Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (Batts I), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the sentencing of a juvenile offender 

convicted of first-degree murder. Noting that the United States Supreme Court 

in Miller declined to place a “categorical ban” on LWOP sentences for juvenile 

offenders, the Supreme Court in Batts I held that juvenile offenders convicted 

of first-degree murder could be subject to a LWOP sentence only after the 

court considered the sentencing criteria outlined in Miller. Id. at 296-99. 

Subsequently, in Batts II, our Supreme Court further examined the 

procedure for resentencing juvenile offenders who were improperly sentenced 

to life without parole prior to Miller.

2 This Court applied Batts II in 

Commonwealth v. Seskey, 170 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Super. 2017), and expressly 

held Batts II “requires that an individual convicted of first or second-degree 

murder for a crime committed as a minor be sentenced to a maximum term 

of life imprisonment.” Id. at 1105-06 (footnote omitted). Likewise, in 

Commonwealth v. Blount, 207 A.3d 925, 938-39 (Pa. Super. 2019), a panel 

of this Court held the imposition of a mandatory maximum sentence of life in 

prison for a juvenile defendant convicted of first-degree murder prior to Miller

____________________________________________

2 We note that Batts II was recently abrogated in part by the United States 

Supreme Court in Jones, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021). The Jones Court confirmed

that mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders violate the cruel and 

unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. See Jones at 1322. However, the Court held that sentencing 

schemes that allow the discretionary imposition of life sentences pass 

constitutional muster and do not require a separate factual finding of 

permanent incorrigibility. See id. at 1321.
J-S29010-21

- 9 -

was constitutional. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Olds, 192 A.3d 1188, 

1197-98 (Pa. Super. 2018), a panel of this Court held that the imposition of a 

mandatory maximum sentence of life in prison for a juvenile defendant 

convicted of second-degree murder prior to Miller was constitutional. 

Accordingly, pursuant to our precedent, the trial court was required to impose 

upon Harper a maximum sentence of life.

This Court has previously addressed and rejected Harper’s claim that

this sentencing scheme ignores the requirement that sentences be 

individualized. Specifically, this Court has addressed that identical claim and 

reaffirmed that trial courts must sentence juveniles convicted of first- or 

second-degree murder prior to June 25, 2012, to a maximum term of life 

imprisonment under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(b). See Blount, 207 A.3d 925 

(rejecting the claim that a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment as 

applied to juvenile offenders convicted of murder prior to Miller violates the 

mandate of individualized sentencing); Commonwealth v. Ligon, 206 A.3d 

1196 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding a sentence with a term of years minimum 

and maximum sentence of life does not violate Miller's individualized 

sentencing requirement, because it properly leaves ultimate decision of when 
J-S29010-21

- 10 -

the defendant will be released to the parole board). Accordingly, because we 

are bound by our precedent, Harper is not entitled to relief on this issue.3

Harper last argues the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning his 

sentence. He asserts the trial court based his sentence mainly upon the 

serious nature of the crime and its impact upon the victim’s family. Harper 

alleges the trial court ignored his rehabilitative needs and the fact that while 

he has been incarcerated for 20 years, he has shown that he is amenable to 

additional rehabilitation. Therefore, he contends the trial court failed to 

consider pertinent factors in creating his sentence.

Our standard of review is one of abuse of discretion. 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. 

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).

It is well settled there is no absolute right to appeal the discretionary 

aspects of a sentence. Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800, 805 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). Rather, where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects 

of a sentence, the appeal should be considered a petition for allowance of 

____________________________________________

3 To the extent Harper relies upon Songster v. Beard, 201 F.Supp.3d 639 

(E.D.Pa. 2016) for support of his argument, this Court has previously

expressly rejected an appellant’s reliance on Songster. See Olds, 192 A.3d 

at 1197 n.18 (“[W]e do not agree with Songster and hold that it is not binding 

authority in Pennsylvania”).
J-S29010-21

- 11 -

appeal. See Commonwealth v. W.H.M., 932 A.2d 155, 163 (Pa. Super. 

2007).

As we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. 

Super. 2010):

An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence 

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) 

whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, 

see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was 

properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to 

reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 

720; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from 

is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation and brackets omitted).

Here, the first three requirements of the four-part test are met. Harper 

brought an appropriate appeal, raised the issue in a post-sentence motion, 

and included in his appellate brief the necessary concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). We 

next determine whether he has raised a substantial question requiring us to 

review the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.

Whether a particular issue constitutes a substantial question about the 

appropriateness of sentence is a question to be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. See Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa. Super. 

2001). As to what constitutes a substantial question, this Court does not 
J-S29010-21

- 12 -

accept bald assertions of sentencing errors. See Commonwealth v. 

Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2006). Rather, an appellant must 

show actions by the trial court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or 

contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process. See 

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735, 737 (Pa. Super. 2006).

In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Harper argues the trial court abused its 

discretion by failing to consider certain factors pertaining to Harper’s age and 

abhorrent childhood, as well as his proven amenability to rehabilitation. See 

Appellant’s Brief at 58-59. This Court has found a substantial question exists 

where there is an allegation that the sentencing court failed to consider the 

factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).4 See Commonwealth v. Fullin, 

892 A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. Super. 2006) (concluding that the appellant raised a 

substantial question where it was alleged that the trial court failed to properly 

consider the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)). Therefore, Harper 

has raised a substantial question. As such, we will review the merits of 

Harper’s sentencing claim.

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. See Fullin, 892 A.2d at 847. In this context, an abuse of 

____________________________________________

4 The factors to be considered under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) include: the 

protection of the public, gravity of offense in relation to impact on victim and 

community, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9721(b).
J-S29010-21

- 13 -

discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. See id. Rather, an 

appellant must establish by reference to the record that the sentencing court 

ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, 

prejudice, bias, or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision. 

See id.

The sentencing judge has broad discretion in determining the proper 

penalty, and this Court accords the sentencing court great deference, as it is 

the sentencing court that is in the best position to view a defendant’s 

character, displays of remorse, defiance, or indifference and the overall effect 

and nature of the crime. See Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 

(Pa. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted). As we have stated, “[a] court 

is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the 

character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa. 

Super. 2002) (citation omitted). “In particular, the court should refer to the 

defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his 

potential for rehabilitation.” Id.

In addition, “[o]ur Supreme Court has determined that where the trial 

court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is 

aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where 

the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” 

Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988)).
J-S29010-21

- 14 -

Our review of the record reflects that, at the time of Harper’s 

resentencing, the trial court set forth in painstaking detail the relevant 

evidence and exhibits it took into consideration in fashioning the sentence. 

See N.T., 9/20/18, at 8-18. This recitation summarized the extensive 

testimony and exhibits presented at the four-and-one-half-hour evidentiary 

hearing held on August 22, 2018. See N.T., 8/22/18, at 1-175. Importantly, 

prior to announcing the judgment of sentence, the trial court gave a detailed

account of Harper’s personal and criminal history, Harper’s rehabilitative 

needs, and his positive performance and rehabilitation during his 

incarceration. See N.T., 9/20/18, at 15-18. The trial court further elaborated 

on its full understanding and consideration of the factors relevant for 

imposition of the instant sentence upon Harper in its written opinion. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/2/21, at 6-8.

We conclude the reasons the trial court offered for the sentence imposed 

were more than sufficient to conclude that the court properly considered all 

relevant factors in fashioning Harper’s sentence. Also, because the trial court 

had been fully informed and relied upon the presentence report, we conclude 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in creating the instant sentence. 

Accordingly, Harper’s claim that the trial court failed to consider the 

appropriate factors in imposing the sentence lacks merit.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S29010-21

- 15 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/28/2022