Court Opinion

ID: 9407839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 16:07:21.894652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.410179
License: Public Domain

J-S17011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 ERIC D. HANCOCK                          :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1465 WDA 2022

          Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered November 23, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-02-CR-0012895-2007

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                     FILED: July 10, 2023

      Eric D. Hancock appeals pro se from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing without a hearing his petition

filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-

9546. After our review, we affirm.

      This Court previously set forth a brief recitation of the facts and recent

procedural history of this case:

         [I]n 2007, when [Hancock] was 16 years old, he robbed the
         A&E Deli in Carrick Borough and shot the store clerk in the
         chest, killing him. [Following a non-jury trial before the
         Honorable Jeffrey A. Manning, Hancock was found] guilty of
         Second-Degree Murder, Robbery, Possession of a Firearm
         by a Minor, and Carrying a Firearm Without a License. On
         July 3, 2008, [Judge Manning] sentenced [Hancock], in
         relevant part, to life imprisonment without parole (“LWOP”)
         on the Second-Degree Murder conviction.           This Court
         affirmed the Judgment of Sentence, and the Pennsylvania
         Supreme       Court      denied  allowance     of     appeal.
         Commonwealth v. Hancock, 984 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super.
J-S17011-23

          2009) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 996
          A.2d 491 (Pa. 2010). On March 22, 2016, [Hancock] filed a
          [PCRA p]etition [] asserting that his LWOP sentence was
          unconstitutional under Miller [v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460
          (2012)1], and Montgomery [v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190
          (2016)].     The PCRA court granted relief, vacated
          [Hancock’s] sentence, and scheduled the case for
          resentencing.

          At the resentencing hearing, [Judge Manning] heard expert
          testimony[, presented by Hancock,] from psychologist
          Samuel K. Schachner, Ph.D., victim impact testimony, and
          [Hancock’s] allocution. After reviewing Dr. Schachner’s
          report, the sentencing court acknowledged, “that
          [Hancock], as he stands here, is a different man than he
          was when he was sentenced, and perhaps a different man
          [than] he was when he committed the crime.” N.T.
          Resentencing, 3/21/18, at 23. Nevertheless, the court
          stated that it must also consider the severity of the crime
          and the victim impact statement, and ultimately concluded
          that [a] sentence of 40 years to life was required for the
          protection of the public.

Commonwealth v. Hancock, 851 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. filed July 9, 2019)

(unpublished memorandum decision).

       Hancock filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied, and on appeal

to this Court he challenged the legality of his sentence. Hancock argued the

sentencing court did not articulate, on the record, how it considered each of

the individualized factors set forth in Miller, supra, and Commonwealth v.

Batts, 163 A.3d 410, 458 (Pa. 2017) (Batts II).2 This Court affirmed, finding

____________________________________________

1 Miller held that mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile
offenders violate the Eighth Amendment.

2 Batts was abrogated by Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021),
which held that for purposes of Eighth Amendment, the state’s discretionary
sentencing system is constitutionally sufficient.

                                           -2-
J-S17011-23

no manifest abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of a new sentence of

40 years to life for second-degree murder.3 See Hancock, supra at 6. On

December 4, 2019, our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.

Commonwealth v. Hancock, 221 A.3d 648 (Pa. 2019) (Table).

        On July 9, 2020, Hancock filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, which was

later stayed on December 6, 2021. On May 17, 2022, Hancock filed a pro se

motion to proceed pro se and a motion for leave to file a supplemental petition.

On May 23, 2022, Hancock filed a pro se supplemental PCRA petition and

memorandum of law.           On June 28, 2022, Hancock appeared before the

Honorable Alexander P. Bicket, represented by counsel, and, following a

colloquy, the court granted Hancock’s motion to proceed pro se and granted

counsel leave to withdraw. The court ordered the Commonwealth to file a

response to Hancock’s pro se supplemental PCRA petition and, on August 24,

2022, the court issued notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.

907.

        On November 23, 2022, the court dismissed Hancock’s petition. This

appeal followed.      Both the PCRA court and Hancock have complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Hancock raises the following issues:

              1. Whether the PCRA court committed an error of law by
                 failing to deem resentencing counsel (Ryan H. James,
                 Esq.) ineffective, or at the very least hold an
                 evidentiary hearing, for his failure to object and/or
                 raise on direct review that the resentencing court not
                 only committed a reversible error of law, but also
____________________________________________

3   Judge Manning imposed no further penalty on the remaining counts.

                                           -3-
J-S17011-23

                violated Hancock’s procedural and substantive due
                process rights for failing to provide adequate reasons
                on the record at the time of sentencing for the
                sentence imposed?

            2. Whether the PCRA court committed an error of law by
               failing to deem Hancock’s 40-years-to-life sentence
               illegal and/or unconstitutional for the lack of statutory
               authorization that exists for said sentence.

Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

      This Court’s standard of review regarding an order dismissing a PCRA

petition is whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by

evidence of record and is free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5

A.3d 1260, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). In evaluating a PCRA

court’s decision, our scope of review is limited to the findings of the PCRA

court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the

prevailing party at the trial level. Id. The PCRA court’s credibility

determinations are binding on this Court where the record supports those

determinations. Commonwealth v. Widgins, 29 A.3d 816, 820 (Pa. Super.

2011).

      Here, Hancock claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance

by failing to object to the sentencing court’s failure “to place on the record at

the time of sentencing, adequate reasons for the judgment of sentence

imposed.” Appellant’s Brief, at 9. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) (“In every case

in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, modifies

a sentence, resentences an offender following revocation of probation, county

intermediate punishment or State intermediate punishment[,] or resentences

                                      -4-
J-S17011-23

following remand, the court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose

in open court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons

for the sentence imposed.”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(C)(2) (“The judge shall state

on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed.”).

      It is well-settled that counsel is presumed to have been effective
      and that the petitioner bears the burden of proving counsel's
      alleged ineffectiveness. To overcome this presumption, a
      petitioner must establish that: (1) the underlying substantive
      claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel did not have a reasonable
      basis for his or her act or omission; and (3) the petitioner suffered
      prejudice as a result of counsel's deficient performance, that is, a
      reasonable probability that but for counsel’s act or omission, the
      outcome of the proceeding would have been different. A PCRA
      petitioner must address each of these prongs on appeal. A
      petitioner’s failure to satisfy any prong of this test is fatal to the
      claim.

Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 177 A.3d 136, 144 (Pa. 2018) (citations and

quotations omitted).

      With respect to Hancock’s underlying claim, we conclude that he has

raised substantial questions meriting our review. See Commonwealth v.

Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 273 (Pa. Super. 2017) (substantial question raised

where appellant argues sentencing court failed to set forth adequate reasons

for sentence imposed).

      Our standard of review for challenges to the discretionary aspects of

sentencing is as follows:

      Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge. The standard employed when reviewing the
      discretionary aspects of sentencing is very narrow. We may
      reverse only if the sentencing court abused its discretion or
      committed an error of law. A sentence will not be disturbed on

                                      -5-
J-S17011-23

     appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an
     abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment.
     Rather, the 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. We must accord
     the sentencing court’s decision great weight because it was in the
     best position to review the defendant’s character, defiance or
     indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime.

Commonwealth v. Rosario, 248 A.3d 599, 613 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation

omitted).

     After our review, we conclude that Hancock’s claim is meritless. Judge

Manning held a two-day resentencing hearing, heard testimony as outlined

above, and articulated, on the record, his reasons for imposing Hancock’s

sentence.   As this Court previously observed:      “Although the [sentencing]

court shared its opinion of, and disagreement with, precedential case law

requiring consideration of [Hancock’s] current maturation as a factor in

fashioning a new sentence, the court ultimately recognized that it must

consider both the crime [Hancock] committed and the person he is today.”

Commonwealth v. Hancock, 851 WDA 2018, at *6, citing N.T. Resentencing

Hearing, 3/21/18, at 15-16, 22-23. Judge Manning stated:

     The [c]ourt has carefully considered this matter. Early on, in this
     proceeding, the [c]ourt challenged defense counsel on the issue
     of whether or not [Hancock] was to be sentenced for the crime he
     committed or for the person he is today. And [defense counsel]
     answered that both, and, I believe, legally, he is correct on the
     law, and that is the [c]ourt must consider both. I find it less than
     comfortable to consider the person that he is today, based upon
     the fact that we have centuries of law that deals with the concept
     of punishment for commission[] of crimes. . . . While the [c]ourt
     has developed that concept and used that to make changes in

                                      -6-
J-S17011-23

      what would otherwise be the death penalty i[m]position, the
      bottom line here is that it would appear to me that []Hancock, as
      he stands here, is a different man when he was sentenced than
      he was when he committed the crime. The [c]ourt must always
      look back at the severity of the crime, and as you pointed
      out, I did say that it was willful and deliberate, and the
      question was[,] was the homicide premeditated. Well, we
      all know that the law says that premeditation can occur in
      an instant, and clearly it did here.

Id. at 21-23 (emphasis added). Because we find these reasons adequate, we

conclude there was no manifest abuse of discretion and, thus, Hancock’s

sentencing claim is meritless. See Rosario, supra. Consequently, Hancock’s

claim of ineffectiveness fails.   Wholaver, supra.

      Next, Hancock argues that his sentence of 40 years to life is “illegal and

without statutory authority.” Appellant’s Brief, at 21. He claims that the plain

language of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1 makes it clear that “only those juveniles

convicted after June 24, 2012, are to be sentenced/resentenced under those

guidelines.” Appellant’s Brief, at 16. Hancock was convicted in 2008. He

claims, therefore, that section 1102.1 is inapplicable to him.

      Hancock’s claim challenges the legality of his sentence. Challenges to

the legality of a sentence present pure questions of law.        Our standard of

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

Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 174 A.3d 1130, 1147 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(citations omitted).

      On June 24, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
      Miller. Thereafter, our General Assembly enacted section 1102.1
      and made it retroactive for juveniles convicted of first or second-
      degree murder after June 24, 2012. Moreover, our General
      Assembly amended section 1102 to clarify that it does not

                                      -7-
J-S17011-23

        apply to juveniles convicted of first or second-degree
        murder after June 24, 2012. Section 1102, therefore,
        applies to adults convicted of first or second-degree
        murder and juveniles convicted of first or second-degree
        murder prior to June 25, 2012.

Commonwealth v. Olds, 192 A.3d 1188, 1193-94 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(emphasis added).

        Here, Hancock was convicted in 2008, prior to the effective date of 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1 (which sets forth the mandatory minimum and maximum

sentences for juveniles convicted of first and second-degree murder).4

Hancock is correct that section 1102.1 is inapplicable to him.      However,

because his conviction occurred “prior to June 25, 2012,” see Olds, supra,

the court had “statutory authorization” when it sentenced him to a maximum

of life in prison pursuant to section 1102(b).5         Indeed, in Olds, “we

reaffirm[ed] that trial courts must sentence juveniles convicted of

____________________________________________

4   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1 provides, in relevant part:

        (c) Second degree murder.—A person who has been convicted
        after June 24, 2012, of a murder of the second degree . . .
        and who was under the age of 18 at the time of the
        commission of the offense shall be sentenced as follows:

           (1) a person who at the time of the commission of the
           offense was 15 years of age or older shall be sentenced to
           a term of imprisonment the minimum of which shall
           be at least 30 years to life.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1(c)(1) (emphasis added).
518 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(b) provides: “Except as provided under section 1102.1,
a person who has been convicted of murder of the second degree . . . shall be
sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.”

                                           -8-
J-S17011-23

second-degree murder prior to June 25, 2012[,] to a maximum term

of life imprisonment under section 1102(b).”          Id. at 1198 (emphasis

added). We held “that such mandatory maximums do not violate the Eighth

Amendment’s     ban   on   cruel   and    unusual   punishment.”    Id.   See

Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 242 A.3d 667 (Pa. Super. 2020) (when

resentencing defendant who was convicted of second-degree murder as

juvenile prior to Miller v. Alabama, supra, post-conviction court had valid

statutory authority to sentence defendant to 30 years to life imprisonment;

constitutionally permissible to impose minimum term-of-years sentence and

maximum sentence of life imprisonment under section 1102(b), thus exposing

juvenile to parole eligibility upon expiration of minimum sentence). See also

Commonwealth v. Summers, 245 A.3d 686 (Pa. Super. 2021) (in

resentencing defendant for second-degree murder he committed as 17-year-

old juvenile, sentencing court required to apply traditional sentencing

considerations under Sentencing Code, rather than sentencing factors set

forth in Miller and codified in Sentencing Code, where Commonwealth did not

request LWOP sentence). Accordingly, we reject Hancock’s argument that no

statutory authority exists for his sentence of 40 years’ to life imprisonment.

See Derrickson, supra (rejecting argument that there is no statutory basis

for sentencing juvenile convicted of second-degree murder committed prior to

Miller).

      The PCRA court’s determination is supported by evidence of record and

is free of legal error. Burkett, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

                                    -9-
J-S17011-23

     Order affirmed.

     King, J., Joins the Memorandum.

     Olson, J., Concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/10/2023

                                    - 10 -