CREATORS: No More Mandatory Life for Felony Murder in Pennsylvania

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 31, 2026

A 2021 report by the Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity found that there were 8,242 people serving life without parole (LWOP), or virtual life sentences of 50 or more years in Pennsylvania, the second-highest number not only in the country, but around the world.

Over 1,100 of those sentenced to life without parole were the result of the state's second-degree murder — "felony murder" — statute. That number may begin to decline.

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder. The key to that ruling is "mandatory."

Under the law, anyone convicted of participating in a felony that results in death — such as a robbery — receives an automatic life sentence, even if the person didn't commit the killing or intend for anyone to die.

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by-case basis, but the state high court said mandatory life violates the state constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but Pennsylvania has its own constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments — Article I, Section 13.

Across the country few states still impose mandatory life without parole. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in light of the ruling in Pennsylvania, only Louisiana has mandatory LWOP for a felony murder conviction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reasoned that "a mandatory life without parole sentence for all felony murder convictions, absent an assessment of culpability, is inconsistent with the protections bestowed upon our citizens" under Article I, Section 13.

Recognizing the gravity of a life without parole sentence, the court wrote, "Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law — imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release — regardless of culpability."

The decision will have a significant impact, and as a result, the court stayed the imposition of the ruling for 120 days to allow the Pennsylvania legislature to remedy the unconstitutional sentencing scheme through legislation.

The most pressing question is, will the decision be retroactive? If so, how does retroactivity affect the sentences of people already behind bars? How lawmakers approach that process — and what remedies they might settle on — could be the subject of intense debate.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, options could include seeking resentencing hearings for every person already convicted under the law, to more narrow approaches that might invite additional questions — and litigation — about how to apply the new finding to cases that were decided decades ago.

In addition, what will be the sentencing scheme for felony murder in future cases? As the court made clear, LWOP is still an option. But what are the options short of LWOP? The legislature will have to set the parameters and have only 120 days to do it.

Marsha Levick, the Phyllis Beck chair at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, and former chief legal officer of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, coauthored briefs in a series of cases that struck down mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, and said Pennsylvania's high court in this case appeared to be positioning its ruling for retroactive application — even if it stopped short of saying so.

Levick told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the opinion echoes the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used to make similar decisions retroactive in juvenile cases, though she cautioned that "we're going to have to wait for action."

According to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, if no legislation is passed, or a bill is approved that doesn't address existing life sentences, that will likely kick the issue back to the courts. And that could result in further delay for those subject to unconstitutional sentences.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

SCOTUS will soon hear what may be the most important case since the Civil War

 Garrett Epps writes in the Washington Monthly:

On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, which will test the theory that the president, with the stroke of a pen, can strip millions of American-born children of the birthright citizenship the Constitution grants them. 

The birthright citizenship case is easily the most important case that will come before the Court this year. I’ll add: Barbara may be the most important case the Court hears in this century.  

It may be the most important case the Court has heard since the Civil War. 

Epps sums up the issue like this:

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since the amendment’s adoption in 1868, these words have applied to those born in the U.S.—except for two classes: First, children born to the families of foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity means they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.; and, second, children born to members of Native American nations living on reservations, who were, in 1868, not “subject to the jurisdiction” because, by treaty, they could not be arrested or sued in federal court. (This provision was undone by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.) The birthright of all other American-born children has been recognized by the Supreme Court for 125 years and by Congress since at least 1940.  

To read more CLICK HERE

PA Supreme Court strikes down mandatory LWOP for felony murder

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it’s unconstitutional to require mandatory life sentences without parole for people convicted of felony murder, The Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“Life without parole imposes the harshest imprisonment sanction permitted under the law ─ imprisonment until death without the opportunity for consideration of release ─ regardless of culpability,” Chief Justice Debra Todd wrote in the majority opinion. “Due to this scheme’s mandatory nature and its unique severity, it poses a great risk of disproportionate punishment.” 

Life sentences will still be allowed for second-degree murder on a case-by case-basis, but Todd writes that it violates the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to mandate it in all cases.

The decision was near-unanimous, with only one judge, Justice Kevin Brobson, dissenting in part.

But what the ruling means for the more than 1,000 Pennsylvanians serving life sentences without parole on felony murder charges is still unclear.

The ruling gives the general assembly 120 days to come up with a legislative fix to the state’s sentencing laws, but that could take many different shapes. And it will likely kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever taken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

To read more CLICK HERE

Balko: 'You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it'

 The Watch by Radley Balko on substack:

For me, it became clear that we were in a uniquely dangerous era after the shooting of Marimar Martinez and the killing of Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez in Chicago. I’m pretty jaded about these things, but I was jarred at how the administration openly gloated and shamelessly lied about the use of lethal force by DHS against people who posed no threat. It only got worse after the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The lies the administration told after those killings aren’t the lies you tell to cover something up. They’re the lies you tell when you want to project to the country that you can get away with anything. The lies themselves are their own display of authoritarianism. The government is telling us, “You know we’re lying. We know that you know we’re lying. And there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino appears on Law and Crime's Scandal with Sierra Gillespie

Watch my interview with Sierra Gillespie of Law and Crime's Scandal to discuss the horrific murder in Wales of a mother by her 18-year-old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses verdict in Meta and You Tube trial

Watch my interview with Lindsay McCoy on WFMJ-TV21 regarding landmark California social media suit.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Life Without Parole For Those Who Did Not Intentionally Kill

Sentencing Project
PRESS RELEASE

(Washington, D.C.) Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court barred mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for people convicted of felony murder. The court’s ruling in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee establishes that a mandatory life without parole sentence imposed for felony murder without consideration of the person’s individual culpability violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel punishments”, marking a major shift from automatic and unforgiving policies that had condemned over a thousand to die in prison. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion states: “We find that the sentencing framework imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for second degree murder convictions in all cases, regardless of the culpability and characteristics of the defendant - including such as the extent of an offender’s participation in the conduct, and the details of his offense - without individualized assessment either at sentencing or through parole, prevents the sentencer from considering whether this harshest of sentences proportionately punishes the offender. . . . Ultimately, we find that the mandatory sentencing scheme for second degree murder poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment, and, thus, find it to be cruel.”  

The Sentencing Project joined 16 other organizations, including the ACLU, MacArthur Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Pennsylvania Prison Society, in filing amicus briefs urging the Court to strike down Pennsylvania’s lifetime ban on parole eligibility for individuals convicted of felony murder. As noted in its brief, “The reduced culpability of a person convicted of felony murder… renders life without parole disproportionately harsh and unconstitutional.” 

Pennsylvania remains a national outlier, with over 5,000 people serving life without parole—nearly 1,100 for felony murder—ranking among the highest in the country. The Sentencing Project’s research shows these laws disproportionately impact Black Pennsylvanians, who make up 70% of those serving time for felony murder, despite being just 12% of the state’s population. 

“This decision is a critical step toward ending the use of extreme sentences that ignore the human capacity for change and do nothing to prevent crime or keep our communities safe,” said Sara Cohbra of The Sentencing Project. “Mandatory LWOP sentences for these crimes are a clear violation of how our legal system is supposed to work, where a criminal sentence is proportional to the moral weight of a crime. We urge lawmakers to repeal cruel and ineffective felony murder statutes to address the scourge of mass incarceration and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.”  

Read the full amicus brief for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Derek Lee here. For more information about how The Sentencing Project is advocating against extreme sentences, please visit https://www.sentencingproject.org/ending-extreme-sentences/.