Don't Throw Away the Key

What will a Supreme Court decision mean for Pennsylvania's juvenile lifers?

by Matt Stroud

Neal Santos SISTER OF MERCY: Her brother's life-without-parole incarceration led Anita Colon to advocate for what she calls "the fair sentencing of youth."

[ second chances ]

At 16, Terrance Graham participated in the armed burglary of a restaurant in Florida. He was caught and sentenced to probation with the understanding that if he didn't stay out of trouble, there'd be hell to pay.

Six months later, in December 2004, he broke into a house and robbed a man at gunpoint. Later that night, when a police officer tried to pull him over for a traffic violation, Graham fled. A prolonged chase ensued down residential streets before Graham was apprehended. He was convicted and, in May 2006, sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for his role in the restaurant burglary. He was given another 15-year sentence, to be served concurrently, for the home invasion.

Graham appealed, arguing that his sentence — for a crime committed at 16 that didn't kill anyone — was excessively unjust.

On May 17, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled it unconstitutional for "a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime because it is cruel and unusual."

Under the ruling, states don't need to guarantee that juvenile lifers locked up for a non-murder offense will be freed at some point, but they "must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term."

Nationwide, this decision directly affected 129 prisoners. None of them are in Pennsylvania.

In a statement following the Supreme Court ruling, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said the decision "will have little to no impact here in Philadelphia. The decision involves juveniles under the age of 18 serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a crime other than murder. In Philadelphia we believe there are no such cases."

HALF OFF DEPOT

Why live life at full price?

But the reality isn't so clear-cut: Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion states that "defendants who do not kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are categorically less deserving of [life without the possibility of parole] than are murderers."

In Pennsylvania, the felony — or second-degree — murder rule imposes a mandatory life sentence without parole for any crime involving a homicide, whether or not that homicide was intended. And because the commonwealth allows juveniles to be tried as adults in murder cases, there are many cases in Pennsylvania involving juveniles sentenced to life without parole for crimes in which they did not kill, intend to kill or foresee that a life would be taken.

For example, Robert Holbrook. In 1990, the then-16-year-old Holbrook was offered $500 to be a lookout for what he was told would be a drug deal in North Philly. That drug deal, however, turned out to be an armed robbery — and in the process, someone was shot and murdered. Holbrook knew what went down, but didn't tell the cops about it immediately because he was afraid of what might happen to him. Months later, one of his accomplices was apprehended, and gave up Holbrook. The authorities put out an arrest warrant. Holbrook turned himself in.

He was charged with murder, robbery and criminal conspiracy. On the advice of his attorney, Donald Marino, Holbrook, who had no prior criminal record, admitted his involvement, and asked the judge to find him guilty of third-degree murder, a lesser offense that carries a 20-year sentence. But the judge convicted him of first-degree murder, which meant life without parole.

"I didn't believe a life sentence was warranted, and I truly thought the judge would agree," says Marino in an e-mail interview. (Holbrook is still in state prison.)

Holbrook's sister, Anita Colon, has since become an advocate for what she calls "the fair sentencing of youth." The Philly-based state coordinator for the National Campaign for Fair Sentencing for Children, Colon testified before Congress' Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in 2009 in support of the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act, which would grant juvenile lifers a chance at parole. That bill, proposed by Reps. Robert Scott (D-Va.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.), is currently languishing in Washington, D.C.

There's some discrepancy over exactly how many juvenile lifers are serving their time in Pennsylvania, but Colon says the number is more than 400 — the highest of any state — and that about 30 percent of those are serving time for felony murder. The others are in for first-degree murders.

Colon believes the court's most recent decision, following the one in 2005 that prohibited the death penalty for minors, is "a step in the direction of eliminating life without any possibility of parole for juveniles in total. And that includes everyone — not just felony murder cases, but murder cases, too."

This isn't about being soft on crime, she continues: "Clearly no one who advocates for eliminating life without the possibility of parole advocates for opening the doors and letting all 2,500 juvenile lifers across the country out. What we want is the opportunity to review these cases on a case-by-case basis and to see if these children, now that they're adults, have rehabilitated themselves and if they're still a risk to society."

State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R-12th District), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, held a hearing in 2008 to investigate why Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of juveniles it sends to prison for life. "It's important for us to have justice," Greenleaf says. "[Juvenile life without parole] is a two-edged sword. ... The legislation we have [in Pennsylvania] is appropriate for people who have committed terrifying, premeditated murders. But not every case is like that."

Greenleaf thinks the severity of punishment in these cases should be left to judges. He's also crafting legislation that would allow juveniles convited of felony murder —though not actual killers — a chance at parole.

In the wake of the Graham ruling, Bradley Bridge, a lawyer with the nonprofit Defender Association of Philadelphia, which represents indigent criminal defendants, says that he and other lawyers representing juvenile lifers will file as many appeals as possible in the 60-day window allotted by Pennsylvania law in which they can attempt to apply new court decisions to older cases.

That window expires in mid-July.

Bridge would not disclose the specific cases he's working on, but he says the next month and a half should be interesting.

(editorial@citypaper.net)