J

- S09023

- 20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ERIK VANZANT

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1102 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 15, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0507511

- 1988

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and COLINS, J. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 27, 2020

Erik Vanzan t appeals from the amended judg ment of sentence , entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after a jury convicted
him of first

- degree murder, 1 robbery, 2 bur glary, 3 theft by unlawful taking, 4 and theft by receiving stolen property. 5 After careful review, we affirm.

Vanzant committed the above

- mentioned crimes on April 14, 1988 , when he was 14 years old. A jury convicted him i n October of 1989. On

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701.

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502.

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921.

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925.J

- S09023

- 20

- 2

-

February 20, 1991, the court sentenced him to life impriso nment plus a consecutive aggregate sentence of 20

- 40 years’ imprisonment. Vanzant unsuccessfully pursued r elief on direct appeal and filed multiple Post

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petitions , all of which were denied

. On December
30, 2013, Vanzant filed another amended PCRA petition , arguing a change in the law rendered his prior sentence illegal. The court vacated Vanzant’s judgment of sentence and resentenced him on September 21, 2018, to a period of 31 years’ to life imprisonment. The court also ordered Vanzant to complete sex offender treatment and that sex offender status be a condition of any possible parole

. On October 16, 2018, Vanzant sought permission to file post

- sentence

motions nunc pro tunc , which the court allowed. On March 15, 2019, t he court amended the September 21, 2018 judgment of sentence. The court granted , in part , Vanzant’s post

- sentence motion , eliminating the requirement of sex
offender status as a cond ition of parole and limit ing sex offender treatment to

one year . However, the court denied Vanzant’s request to eliminate the life

tail on his sentence. On April 12, 2019, Vanzant filed this timely appeal. On appeal, Vanzant claims it is unconstitutional to sentence a person to

a mandatory lifetime period of parole for a juvenile offense. He argues that

Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012) , and Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) , require a co urt resentencing a juvenile to fashion an individualized sentence, which is contrary to Pennsylvania’s requirement that the maximum sentence be life imprisonment.J

- S09023

- 20

- 3

-

In Miller , t he United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional

mandator y life

- without

- parole sentences for minors

. Miller , 567 U.S. at 479

. In Montgomery , t he United States Supreme Court clarified that its ruling in
Miller was retroactive

. Montgomery , 136 S. Ct. at 732

. T he Pennsylvania
Supreme Court subsequently interpreted Miller and held :
Miller neither barred imposition of a life

- without

- parole sentence on a juvenile categorically nor indicated that a life sentence with the possibility of parole could never be mandatorily imposed on a juvenile

. Rather, Miller requires only that there be judicia l consideration of the appropriate age - related factors set forth in that decision prior to the imposition of a sentence of a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on a juvenile.

Commonwealth v. Batts , 66 A.3d 286, 295

- 96 (Pa. 2013) ( Batts I )
(emphasis added) (citations omitted) . The Pennsylvania Supreme Court went

on to state that once a sentencing court evaluates the criteria identified in

Miller and determines a life

- without

- parole sentence is inappropriate, it must impose a “mandatory max imum sentence of life imprisonment as required by
[s]ection 1102(a), accompanied by a minimum sentence determined by the common pleas court upon resentencing.” Batts I , 66 A.3d at 297 (citing 18
Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)). After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court he ard argument

on Batts I , but prior to publishing its opinion, the Pennsylvania General
Assembly codified the Miller factors. 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102.1. However, section
1102.1 only applies to convictions that occur after June 24, 2012. Four years

later , t he Court reaffirmed its ruling. See Commonwealth v. Batts , 163
A.3d 410, 439

- 41 (Pa. 2017) ( Batts II ).J

- S09023

- 20

- 4

-

This Court has followed our Supreme Court’s ruling s and upheld

maximum life sentences for juveniles convicted of murder

. See Commonwealth v. Ligon , 206 A.3d 1196, 1200

- 01 (Pa. Super. 2019)
( finding sentencing court statutorily required to sentence juvenile defendant

convicted of first

- degree murder , prior to Miller , to maximum term of life
imprisonment ) ; Commonwealth v. Seskey , 170 A.3d 1105, 1008

- 09 (Pa

. Super . 2017) (holding trial court required to impose maximum life sentence
when it resentenced juvenile defendant convicted of first

- degree murder prior

to Miller ).

Based on the above

- precedent, it is clear that Vanzant’s argument that “the sentencing [c]ourt erroneously believed it was required to impose a mandatory lifetime parole tail” is incorrect. Appellant’s Brief, at 5. Under

Batts I , Batts II , Ligon , and Seskey , the sentencing court was statutorily
required pursu ant to section 1102(a) to sentence Vanzant to a maximum term of life imprisonment. 6 Judgment of sentence affirmed.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
6 The Commonwealth argues that we should adopt the reasoning in Songster v. Beard , 201 F. Supp. 3d 639 (E.D. Pa. 2016), argu ing that a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, regardless of the minimum term, does not reflect individualized sentencing. Appellee’s Brief, at 4. However, So ngster is not binding on this C ourt. Furthermore, the Commonwealth recognizes that this C ourt h as repeatedly upheld the sentencing of juvenile defendants convicted of first or second

- degree murder to maximum sentences of life imprisonment. Id. at 5.J

- S09023

- 20

- 5

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/27/2020