Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
Summary of the case Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the petition for allowance of appeal to determine if Robert Russell Buli's sentence violates the prohibition against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders, as established in Miller v. Alabama. The court vacated the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with Montgomery v. Louisiana, which requires retroactive application of Miller.
Key Issues of the case Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
- Whether the petitioner's sentence violates the prohibition against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders
- Application of Miller v. Alabama retroactively
Key Facts of the case Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
- Petition for Allowance of Appeal was granted
- Superior Court's order was vacated
Decision of the case Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
The Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Montgomery.
Impact of the case Commonwealth v. Buli, R.
The decision emphasizes the retroactive application of constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Opinions
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 876 MAL 2015 : Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Unpublished Memorandum and : Order of the Superior Court at No. 3438 v. : EDA 2014 exited October 21, 2015, : affirming the Order of the Bucks : County Court of Common Pleas at No. ROBERT RUSSELL BULI, : CP-09-CR-0001294-1978 exited : November 10, 2014 Petitioner :
ORDER
PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 12, 2016
AND NOW, this 12th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
is GRANTED on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition
against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme
Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
As a result of the recent holding by that Court that Miller must be applied retroactively
by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the
Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with Montgomery.
To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction
petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending
to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States
which it deems to be retroactive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii).
Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
matter.