David Ernest Williams v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Miller factors were immaterial where the Commonwealth did not seek LWOP, and instead, considering the sentencing issue as a discretionary aspects challenge under the sentencing code
• concluding that a prison term of 35 years to life did not constitute a de facto LWOP sentence, where appellant had committed the crime when, and been in jail since, he was 17 years old
• concluding claims that trial court failed to consider Miller factors and did not consider rehabilitative evidence are challenges to discretionary aspects of sentence
• recognizing substantial question where appellant claims sentencing court disregarded the defendant’s rehabilitation needs
• recognizing substantial question where appellant claims 2 See Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa.Super. 2004) (stating that “when the appellant has not included a Rule 2119(f
• stating that “a sentencing court must consider these Miller factors only in cases where the Commonwealth is attempting to meet its burden of overcoming the presumption against juvenile LWOP sentences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).