Commonwealth v. Blount

John Blount originally received a mandatory life without parole sentence for a crime he committed as a youth. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, holding such mandatory sentencing unconstitutional, Mr. Blount was resentenced to 35-years-to-life despite the Commonwealth’s offer and Defense’s acceptance of a negotiated 29-years-to-life sentence based on the exceptional rehabilitation Mr. Blount has demonstrated during his 28 years of incarceration. 

Along with the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Juvenile Law Center filed a brief in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania arguing that imposing an additional six years on a juvenile lifer at resentencing is excessive where the court found credible evidence that established that the juvenile had been rehabilitated. We further argued that it is unconstitutional to impose a mandatory lifetime parole tail on all juvenile lifers being resentenced.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Mr. Blount’s sentence, finding that the sentencing court’s rejection of the negotiated sentence was not an abuse of discretion, that the sentencing court did properly consider Mr. Blount’s rehabilitation, and that a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment for juvenile lifers is constitutional. 

Juvenile Law Center and the Defender Association of Philadelphia filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that the sentencing court erred in denying Mr. Blount’s recusal motion after refusing the negotiated sentence, that the sentencing court considered "facts" that were palpably false when sentencing Mr. Blount, and that Miller invalidates mandatory lifetime parole sentences for youth. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mr. Blount’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal.