Yes. The ruling found mandatory 2nd-degree LWOP sentences to be unconstitutional and in violation of the cruel punishment clause of the PA Constitution. But the ruling also complicated its application. On one hand, the ruling technically only applies to one case (that of Derek Lee). On the other hand, the justices very clearly state that they find the entire sentence of mandatory LWOP for 2nd-degree/felony murder unconstitutional. So, while all mandatory 2nd-degree sentences are unconstitutional regardless of the specific circumstances of anyone’s case, the court decided not to apply that yet to everyone already serving that sentence.

The Court’s decision to not apply its ruling to everyone already serving the sentence is counterintuitive but also not unusual for higher courts. Our best guess is that they realized they had to make a bold move, but didn’t want to create immediate major consequences (i.e. resentencings for 1000+ people, spread across 50+ counties around the state) without giving various parts of state government some time and input. The rest of the questions below explain what to expect given this unusual situation, and why it means that the remedy for everyone’s 2nd-degree sentences will take a while to become clear.

The stay means the ruling was fully “on pause” for 120 days (from March 26, 2026, to July 24, 2026)—Derek Lee himself couldn’t advance his case during the 120 days, and nothing else in the courts could move during this period either. The Court likely included this to provide itself some cover: in the ruling, they write that the legislature is the entity within the state government that should be making legislative changes. However, the Supreme Court justices also seemed aware that there was a good chance that the legislature would not want to address the issue (because it’s a controversial issue; it’s not in the interest of many politicians to take action on it; the state legislature is split between Democrats and Republicans; etc). So the 120-day period specifically gave the legislature the opportunity to address the problems that the Court identified with 2nd-degree sentencing.

Straight Ahead and other allies have worked in the legislature for over a year on a bill that would present the most favorable remedy for both retroactive and prospective 2nd-degree murder cases. The bill, HB 443, was introduced in the PA House by Rep. Tim Briggs, who is also the chair of the Judiciary Committee in the House. The bill would offer parole eligibility after 25 years for everyone currently serving DBI for 2nd degree, and it would include a 50-year maximum and no minimum for everyone who’s sentenced to 2nd degree in the future (to allow judges to go as low as they want to for different cases). We put significant pressure on legislators to secure traction on a somewhat favorable bill and fight against very harsh bills. HB 443 came from years of discussions with legislators about what would be the most favorable 2nd-degree sentence that policymakers wouldn’t immediately dismiss. Unfortunately, sentences for other categories of homicide are already very high: the current sentence for third degree is 20-40 years, and the juvenile homicide statute for 2nd degree imposes a sentence of 30 years to life for people over 15.

Ultimately, the Senate (led by Republicans) passed an extremely punitive bill, SB 1400, and amended an unrelated bill (that passed through the House before the Lee decision), HB 1042, to include language from SB 1400. Those bills offered parole eligibility after 35 years for most people convicted of 2nd degree, and parole eligibility after 20 years for those over the age of 70. For future 2nd-degree cases it mandated a 35-year mandatory minimum with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

Once HB 1042 reached the House, Democrats amended it to remove the language of SB 1400 and offer parole eligibility at 30 years for those currently sentenced to DBI for 2nd degree, and deferred to the Sentencing Commission to determine guidelines for future 2nd-degree cases. The House version of HB 1042 also included the language of HB 150, a bill previously passed to allow for medical parole.

In summary, both chambers passed a bill, but no compromise was reached because neither party was willing to compromise their position. Therefore, no bill passed the entire legislature; the 120-day “stay” expired with no legislative resolution.

The ruling has gone into effect. Derek Lee’s case will now proceed to a resentencing hearing, and the stage is set for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address the outstanding question of whether their ruling is retroactive to all individuals currently serving a DBI sentence for second degree. The PA Supreme Court might make this ruling through a timely Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition or through another timely legal vehicle.

Based on prior similar cases, it is very likely that they will eventually rule that it applies retroactively. It is unclear when that might happen.

Yes, the 120-day “stay” was not the only window of time that the legislature could act to address retroactivity. The legislature can still pass a bill at any point to address both retroactive (past) sentences and prospective (future) sentences. Even if the Supreme Court makes the ruling retroactive, the legislature still has the authority to pass a bill addressing the guidelines for both retroactive and prospective 2nd-degree sentences.

With the sentence of mandatory DBI ruled unconstitutional, there is currently no constitutional mandatory minimum sentence for 2nd degree. Once the stay expired, this left judges sentencing individuals who have been convicted of 2nd degree with no law or guidelines. Each judge makes an individual determination in each case, and outcomes are likely to vary across the state. We are aware of one case in Lancaster County where a person was sentenced to 25 years to life as a result of a plea bargain.

The legislature can at any time create a new sentence for prospective 2nd-degree cases. They do not have to do so at the same time as addressing retroactive cases.

This is a reasonable assumption, but some context is needed. If the legislature passes a bill that requires resentencing (by not addressing retroactivity), or the courts eventually rule that its decision applies retroactively, then everyone serving a mandatory DBI sentence for 2nd degree will need to have individual resentencings in their trial court. Because the current Lee ruling does not apply to retroactive cases, it is not certain now if everyone will get individual resentencings. However, that remains fairly likely if the legislature doesn’t act.

Yes. The justices ruled specifically that the unconstitutional part of the sentence was that everyone received a mandatory and extreme DBI sentence even though the barrier to 2nd-degree conviction is quite low (knowledge that a felony was taking place plus that felony leading to a death). Unfortunately, their opinions repeatedly state that they don’t think people should never under any circumstances be given DBI for felony murder. The ruling also states specifically that whoever resentences Derek Lee can decide to give him a DBI sentence or a life sentence with a minimum term. The justices said that people convicted of 2nd degree must receive individualized sentencing that considers their culpability, but for now they did not provide more detail about what factors courts must consider as part of the criteria for sentencing.

We cannot give legal advice on any individual’s personal case, and individuals should consult their attorney if they are working with one. The following should not be construed as legal advice, but rather as general guidance for various scenarios:

1. For people who have an active appeal or an active PCRA: It would be timely to raise a Lee claim now, as Commonwealth v. Lee ruled that mandatory DBI is an illegal sentence for 2nd-degree murder. Those represented by counsel should discuss it with their attorney. Those without attorneys may consider asking the court to appoint counsel.
2. For people who were convicted/sentenced within the last year (or are less than 1 year out from the conclusion of their first appeal after being convicted/sentenced): It would be timely to file a PCRA that raises a claim that their sentence is illegal under Commonwealth v. Lee because they were given a mandatory LWOP sentence for 2nd-degree murder. Those represented by counsel should discuss it with their attorney. Those without attorneys may consider filing a timely PCRA and asking the court to appoint counsel.
3. For people who have no active appeal or PCRA, and no other possibility of a timely PCRA: A Lee claim is not likely to be timely at this time and therefore a court likely does not have jurisdiction over the claim.  In order to succeed on a PCRA with a Lee claim, the PA Supreme Court must first to rule that Commonwealth v. Lee applies retroactively due to the PCRA’s rules on when courts are allowed to consider PCRA petitions. An individual can still choose to file a PCRA Petition now stating that they are serving an illegal sentence under Commonwealth v. Lee because they were given a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for 2nd-degree murder. Such claims may be dismissed outright or may be “stayed” and considered after the Supreme Court makes a ruling on retroactivity. Much is unknown at this time on how such claims will be handled county by county. It is unlikely that filing a PCRA now will interfere with any future PCRAs if the Supreme Court issues a retroactivity ruling.

Informational sheets and templates were sent to prison law libraries across the state, which people serving 2nd-degree sentences should be able to access.

If the PA Supreme Court eventually rules that Lee applies retroactively, people will have one year from the date of that ruling to file PCRAs. If that happens, it is likely that everyone currently serving a DBI sentence for 2nd degree will be entitled to a lawyer. If they cannot afford one, it is likely that court-appointed counsel will be provided. Many public defenders have experience with the juvenile lifer re-sentencings that will give them insight and expertise, and they will not charge for representation.

If people are looking at private counsel, they should research and learn about the lawyer’s reputation and how they conduct client representation. Do they schedule regular calls, video, or in-person visits with clients? Did they represent any of those who were formerly sentenced to LWOP as juveniles? Do they have a mitigation strategy? Is there a legal basis for the filings they are offering to prepare? For instance, if a person cannot file a timely PCRA, hiring a lawyer to file an untimely PCRA without the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first deciding the retroactivity issue is likely to result in that petition being dismissed or stayed until such a ruling—but only after the lawyer has been paid.

There are still many things we do not know about how courts will treat PCRA petitions, how resentencing proceedings might play out, and what the best courses of action will be for any individual. We will likely know more as this process continues, but there are very few definitive answers that anyone can give right now.

If people are given the opportunity to be resentenced, they will be entitled to present mitigation evidence. Mitigation is an opportunity for people to tell their story before incarceration, since they’ve been sentenced, and what they hope life could look like outside of prison walls. It is not an excuse for the harm caused by the crime; it is the story of their life beyond it.

An attorney or a mitigation specialist – a member of the defense team who specializes in developing mitigation – will usually gather this information and will do so using two sources: people and records.

Here are some of the people whom attorneys or advocates might want to speak with:

• family, family friends, teachers, or others who knew the person in their childhood
• prison staff or others who have been incarcerated with them who can attest to their accomplishments in prison
• reentry organization staff and loved ones who can describe support available upon a possible return home

Here are some of the records your attorneys or advocates may want to collect:

• court records and transcripts from your 2nd degree conviction
• key childhood records such as school records, social service records, or medical records
• DOC records including disciplinary history, block reports, certifications earned, or programs completed
• family photos from before or during incarceration
• letters of support from family, loved ones, and reentry supports

Given the recent decision in Lee, now is a great time for people to begin thinking about their story, how they would like it to be told, and the people and records who can help tell it.

Unfortunately, it won’t help them establish their innocence. Even if everyone gets an individual resentencing hearing, that is not a new trial that would allow people to make the case that they should not have been convicted in the first place. Individual resentencings do not mean the conviction has been overturned; the conviction remains legally valid, and the trial court must impose a new sentence for the conviction. Courts may be considering that individual’s culpability in the crime in imposing a new sentence. It is not yet clear how resentencing hearings might interact with innocence, also known as guilt phase, claims.

In a direct legal sense, nothing in the ruling states that the Lee decision has any direct relevance to people serving non-2nd degree mandatory sentences. The case and the ruling were specifically about 2nd degree, and the courts generally only rule on the immediate thing before them.

In a larger sense, though, a positive outcome for people serving 2nd-degree sentences will help make the case that all DBI sentences are unjust and excessive. Legally speaking, the ruling was the first major reinterpretation of the cruel punishment clause in PA’s Constitution, and it turned on the notion that DBI sentences were extraordinarily serious, and that such maximal penalties should only be used in rare circumstances. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court had no interest in these arguments, nor in addressing 2nd-degree sentences at all. Continual advocacy and legal and legislative challenges got us to this ruling, which will likely allow 1000+ lifers a chance to come home. We must keep up this pressure, energy, and dedication, and continue fighting for everyone serving long sentences to have more fair and just ways of finding freedom.