Com. v. Gainer, J. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A09039-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOSEPH T. GAINER Appellant No. 1708 WDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 20, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0017534-2009 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DONOHUE, J., and MUNDY, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED: May 2, 2013 Appellant, Joseph T. Gainer, appeals from the April 20, 2011 judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole imposed after he was found guilty of second-degree murder.1 After careful review, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with this judgment order. On April 20, 2011, Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in connection with a crime that he committed prior to his 18th birthday. The United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), recently held that such a sentence is unconstitutional. Id. at 2469. Accordingly, we agree with the ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A ยง 2502(b). J-A09039-13 trial court s conclusion that Appellant must be resentenced.2 Trial Court Opinion, 7/23/12, at 2; see also Commonwealth v. Batts, ___ A.3d ___, 2013 WL 1200252, *8-9 (Pa. 2013) (concluding that the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may consider the factors detailed in Miller and impose a life sentence, either with or without parole); Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 745 (Pa. Super. 2012) (concluding that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender in Pennsylvania violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution pursuant to Miller, as well as Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution). Based on the foregoing, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Miller and Knox. The balance of Appellant s issues are preserved should he file a direct appeal from his new sentence, and we strongly advise that the trial court address said issues.3 ____________________________________________ 2 We note that the Commonwealth concedes that Appellant is entitled to resentencing based on Miller. See Commonwealth Brief at 11. 3 Instantly, Appellant s counsel briefed these issues and appeared for oral argument before this Court, travelling to a special session held in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. However, counsel s efforts, and this Court s ability to review the issues, were undermined by the trial court s failure to provide an on-the-record statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 581. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I). Nor has the trial court otherwise memorialized its reasoning in the record for our review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Consequently, we are (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-A09039-13 Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction Relinquished. Judgment Entered. Deputy Prothonotary Date: 5/2/2013 (Footnote Continued) _______________________ constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing without reaching the merits of Appellant s remaining claims. If further appeal is undertaken, we urge the trial court to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 and Pa.R.A.P. 1925 to avoid further duplication of effort. -3-
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.
