Com. v. Mincey, T. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S44025-23 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TALIQUE Q. MINCEY Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2843 EDA 2022 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003938-2009 BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.* MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 26, 2024 Appellant Talique Q. Mincey appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was resentenced for one count of first-degree murder1 pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016). On appeal, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 12/16/22, at 1-2. Briefly, Appellant was seventeen years old when he made arrangements to meet Thomas Fredrick (the victim) to purchase a controlled substance on October 22, 2008. Upon ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). J-S44025-23 meeting, Appellant and the victim walked into a nearby alleyway, where Appellant killed the victim by shooting him in the head three times. See id. at 1-2. Appellant fled the scene and was subsequently arrested. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime (PIC).2 On July 8, 2011, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, a consecutive sentence of three and one-half to seven years of incarceration for firearms not to be carried without a license, and a concurrent term of two and one-half to five years of incarceration for PIC. See id. at 1. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied the Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Mincey, 1871 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. filed Jul. 18, 2012) (unpublished mem.), appeal denied, 374 EAL 2012, 67 A.3d 795 (Pa. 2012). Appellant subsequently filed a timely Post Conviction Relief Act3 (PCRA) petition. Ultimately, the PCRA court granted relief with respect to Appellant’s illegal sentence for first-degree murder pursuant to Miller and ____________________________________________ 2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 6106, and 907, respectively. 3 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. -2- J-S44025-23 Montgomery.4 See Order, 1/20/17. After Appellant’s sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing,5 the trial court re-sentenced Appellant to a term of thirty years to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. See Sentencing Order, 9/30/22. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied, and Appellant filed a timely appeal. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue: Whether the [trial court] erred in denying [Appellant’s] motion for reconsideration of sentence in failing to considered [sic] [Appellant’s] mental health as a mitigating factor and address his rehabilitative needs by directing that he receive mental health treatment for his diagnosed bi-polar disorder. Appellant’s Brief at 2-3. Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court failed to provide the Department of Corrections (DOC) notice of [Appellant’s] bi-polar disorder so that it could address [Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs by providing him the tools he needs to make better choices when dealing with the lifelong challenge of mental health, as that is in the best interest not only of [Appellant], but also other inmates and DOC staff as well as the public should he be released. ____________________________________________ 4 We note that Miller prohibited mandatory life sentences for juvenile homicide offenders, and Montgomery held that Miller applied retroactively to cases on collateral appeal. Commonwealth v. Felder, 269 A.3d 1232, 1234 (Pa. 2022). Accordingly, “[i]n the wake of these decisions, hundreds of defendants who committed murder as a juvenile and were imprisoned under Pennsylvania’s former mandatory-life-without-parole sentencing scheme had to be resentenced.” Id. 5 See Order, 5/31/22. -3- J-S44025-23 Appellant’s Brief at 21. After careful consideration of the record, the parties’ arguments, and the trial court’s conclusions, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 1-7. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that Appellant did not preserve the instant challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence in his post-sentence motion. See id. at 3-7. In any event, even if Appellant properly preserved this claim for review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by resentencing Appellant. See id. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Date: 3/26/2024 -4- Circulated 02/28/2024 01:21 PM

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.