J-A31016-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ANTHONY M. ROMANELLI

Appellant No. 2114 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 29, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0300422-2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MOULTON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2017

Anthony M. Romanelli appeals from the May 29, 2015 judgment of 

sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 

following a resentencing hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 

A.3d 286 (Pa. 2013) (“Batts I”). The trial court resentenced Romanelli to 

life in prison without parole on a conviction for second-degree murder, which 

he committed when he was 17 years old. Following the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Batts, __ A.3d ___, 2017 

WL 2735411 (Pa. June 26, 2017) (“Batts II”), we vacate the judgment of 

sentence and remand for resentencing.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A31016-16

- 2 -

On November 30, 2006, a jury convicted Romanelli of second-degree 

murder, robbery, aggravated indecent assault, burglary, and conspiracy.1 

On February 2, 2007, the trial court sentenced Romanelli to the thenmandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 

the second-degree murder conviction and a consecutive term of 10 to 20

years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction. On March 1, 2010, this 

Court affirmed his judgment of sentence. On June 27, 2013, the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Romanelli’s life-without-parole 

sentence and remanded for resentencing. 

On May 29, 2015, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and again 

sentenced Romanelli to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 

the second-degree murder conviction and a consecutive term of 10 to 20 

years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction. Romanelli filed a postsentence motion, which the trial court denied on June 23, 2015. On July 9, 

2015, Romanelli filed a timely notice of appeal.

Romanelli raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Is it unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile convicted of 

second degree murder to life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole?

2. Absent a finding that a juvenile is permanently 

incorrigible, is it unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to 

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(b), 3701(a)(1), 3125, 3502(a), and 903, 

respectively. 
J-A31016-16

- 3 -

3. Under the circumstances of this case, was it 

unconstitutional to sentence Anthony Romanelli to life 

imprisonment without the possibility of parole?

Romanelli’s Br. at 3 (suggested answers omitted).

A claim that a juvenile defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment 

without the possibility of parole absent a finding that he “will forever be 

incorrigible, without any hope for rehabilitation” challenges the legality of 

the sentence. Batts II, 2017 WL 2735411, at *18. Our standard of review 

is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Id.

In reviewing a post-Miller2resentencing, our Supreme Court recently 

“established several procedural safeguards designed to ensure that only the 

‘rarest of juvenile offenders’ receive a life-without-parole sentence.” 

Commonwealth v. Coia, ___ A.3d ____, 2017 WL 3223019, at *2 

(Pa.Super. July 31, 2017) (quoting Batts II, 2017 WL 2735411, at *1). 

This Court has summarized the procedural safeguards as follows:

First, the [Supreme] Court concluded that trial courts must 

apply a presumption against the imposition of a lifewithout-parole sentence for juvenile offenders. [Batts II, 

2017 WL 2735411, at *1.] Second, it held that the 

Commonwealth bears the burden of rebutting this 

presumption by establishing beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the juvenile offender is “permanently incorrigible” and 

“incapable of rehabilitation.” Id. Third, it required the 

Commonwealth to provide reasonable notice to the 

defendant of its intent to seek a sentence of life without 

parole. Id. at *34.

____________________________________________

2 Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2460, 183 

L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).
J-A31016-16

- 4 -

Id.3

Here, the trial court resentenced Romanelli to a life-without-parole 

sentence for the second-degree murder conviction following a resentencing 

hearing. The trial court considered the age-related factors as dictated by 

our Supreme Court in Batts I. It did not, however, apply the laterestablished presumption against the imposition of a life-without-parole 

sentence or require the Commonwealth to rebut that presumption with 

evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Romanelli is 

“permanently incorrigible” and “unable to be rehabilitated.” Batts II, 2017

WL 2735411, at *37.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this 

case to the trial court for resentencing in light of Batts II.

4

 

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

____________________________________________

3 The Supreme Court further concluded that expert testimony would 

not be required to rebut the presumption against permanent incorrigibility 

beyond a reasonable doubt, but noted that “[g]iven the presumption against 

life without parole and the Commonwealth’s burden beyond a reasonable 

doubt to rebut the presumption, it is difficult to conceive of a case where the 

Commonwealth would not proffer expert testimony and where the sentence 

would not find expert testimony to be necessary.” Batts II, 2017 WL 

2735411, at *34.

4 Because we have vacated Romanelli’s judgment of sentence, we 

need not reach the remaining issues raised on appeal, including whether 

imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile convicted of 

second-degree murder is unconstitutional.
J-A31016-16

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/21/2017