Com. v. Batts, Q.

J-A05041-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : QU’EED BATTS : : Appellant : No. 258 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001215-2006 BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2026 Qu’eed Batts (“Batts”) appeals from the judgment of sentence— consisting of individual sentences of forty years to life for first degree murder and a consecutive sentence of ten to twenty years of imprisonment for attempted murder1—following his jury convictions for these offenses, arising from Batts’s unprovoked shooting and killing of Clarence Edwards (“Edwards”) and his shooting, in the back, of Cory Hilario (“Hilario”), which Batts perpetrated as a minor to ingratiate himself with a gang leader. Batts raises constitutional challenges to his sentence under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following our review—and in light of our Supreme Court’s recently decided opinion in Commonwealth v. Lee, 357 A.3d 356 (Pa. 2026), ____________________________________________ 1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a); 901(a). J-A05041-26 in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Section 13 provides enhanced protections above the Eighth Amendment 2—we conclude the trial court’s individualized assessment of Batts’s culpability resulted in a sentence proportional to the offense, and, therefore, Batts’s constitutional challenges fail.3 Consequently, we affirm. The trial court provided a comprehensive factual and procedural history of this case, which we set forth in relevant part as follows: I. Batts’s Crimes In the early evening hours of February 7, 2006, Batts, a member of a criminal street gang known as the “Bloods,” was travelling in Easton in a car with four other Bloods gang members. They approached a house at [] Spring Garden Street, where they saw two teenaged boys, [] Edwards [] and [] Hilario [], standing on a ladder and helping Edwards’s father install a video camera on the front porch of the house. Batts did not know the two boys[,] but was told that they had stolen money and drugs from another gang member. The senior gang member in the car, Vernon Bradley (“Bradley”), asked who in the car would like to “put in some work,” which Batts interpreted as a directive to kill the two boys on the front porch of the house. No one else in the car responded. Batts agreed to do the job. The car pulled over, and Bradley gave Batts a mask and a handgun. Batts exited the car, put on the mask and a glove, took the handgun, and walked up the front steps of the house. Batts ordered the three people on the porch to get down. Upon seeing him, they ran toward the front door. Edwards’s ____________________________________________ 2 Batts filed an application for post-submission communication directing our attention to Lee, which we grant. 3 Our Supreme Court granted allocatur regarding Section 13’s applicability to juvenile offenders, see Commonwealth v. King, 339 A.3d 350 (Pa. 2025); however, the Court has not issued a decision in that case. -2- J-A05041-26 father was the first to reach the door and managed to escape into the house. As Hilario tried to enter the house, Batts shot him in the back. Batts then turned toward Edwards, who had fallen down and was lying on the porch. Batts walked over to Edwards and looked down at him. Edwards looked up at Batts’s face. Batts pointed the gun at Edwards and fired two bullets into his head at point blank range. Batts returned to the car, and the group drove away. Police and emergency workers arrived at Edwards’s house. Edwards’s grandmother, Delores Howell, who had raised Edwards from the time he was six years old, opened the front door and saw Edwards lying on the porch with two bullet wounds in his head. The police would not allow anyone to touch Edwards, because it was necessary to transport him to the hospital immediately. Hilario, who was eighteen years old, suffered a serious injury from the bullet wound in his back[,] but ultimately survived. The bullet fractured Hilario’s rib and scapula, but because the bullet was lodged deep in muscle tissue, doctors decided to leave the bullet in his body. One of the bullets Batts had fired at Edwards entered the top of his head on the left side, struck the top part of his skull, and exited through the other side of his head. The other bullet entered Edwards’s left temple, crossed from one side of his head to the other on a downward trajectory, tearing his brain from left to right through the center, and came to rest in the right side of his skull. Edwards died at the hospital. He was sixteen years old and his mother’s only child. **** On the night of the shooting, [] Batts stayed at Bradley’s house. The following day, he left Pennsylvania and went to stay with other gang members in Phillipsburg, New Jersey in order to avoid being arrested by the Easton police. [] Batts’s mother called him and told him that Bradley had been arrested and that the police were looking for him. She urged him to turn himself in. On February 10, 2006, [] Batts was arrested at the house where he was staying in Phillipsburg. When police entered the home, [] Batts attempted to hide his face inside his hoodie sweatshirt. When he was asked to identify himself, he gave a -3- J-A05041-26 false name; however, police were able to identify him from a photograph they had been given. When [] Batts was questioned by police, he initially denied any involvement with the Bloods gang, and he said that Bradley was the one who had fired the gun at Hilario and Edwards; however, later in the same interview [] Batts confessed that it was he who had done the shooting. He showed no emotion, no remorse. He gave no indication that he was fearful of Bradley, and made no mention of having been forced to commit the crime. **** II. Pretrial Proceedings Batts was charged with [several offenses in connection with the shooting]. **** On February 21, 2007, the [c]ourt [held] that Batts would be tried as an adult on all charges. **** III. Procedural History - Conviction and Sentencings At trial, Batts told the jury that he had committed his crimes because he feared that if he did not carry out Bradley’s orders, Bradley would kill him. Despite Batts’s defense that he committed his crimes out of fear for his own life, on July 31, 2007, [a] jury convicted him of first-degree murder for the killing of Edwards and attempted murder and aggravated assault for the shooting of Hilario. Batts was acquitted of the two charges of conspiracy to commit criminal homicide. Batts was sentenced on October 22, 2007 by Judge [William F.] Moran[, to, inter alia,] life in prison. The life sentence was then mandatory. . . .. . . . Batts appealed his conviction to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On April 7, 2009, the Superior Court affirmed -4- J-A05041-26 Batts’s conviction. Batts petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for allocatur[,] which was granted. While Batts’s case was on appeal, in 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 480 (2012). In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Miller did not impose a categorical ban on life without parole for juveniles but held that such a sentence cannot be mandatory[,] but may be imposed only after the trial court has considered mitigating factors, particularly those related to the defendant’s age and level of maturity at the time of the offense. Applying Miller, . . . the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded Batts’s case to this Court for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Batts, 66 A.3d 286, 295 (Pa. 2013) (“Batts I”). Following Judge Moran’s retirement, in April of 2013, then- President Judge F.P. Kimberly McFadden re-assigned the case [to Judge Michael J. Koury, Jr.] for disposition. In Batts I, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed th[e trial c]ourt to resentence Batts[,] giving consideration to the factors outlined in Miller. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirmed that Miller does not preclude life without parole for juveniles but that upon consideration of the specified factors, th[e c]ourt may impose that sentence with or without the possibility of parole. On May 2, 2014, after a two-day sentencing hearing, th[e trial c]ourt sentenced Batts to[, inter alia,] life without parole for the charge of first-degree murder. . . . Batts appealed and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed his sentence. Thereafter, Batts filed for allocatur which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted. In 2017, in a case known as Batts II, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Batts I, reversed the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and reversed th[e trial c]ourt’s sentence imposed in 2014. See Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d at 410, 484 (Pa. 2017) [(“Batts II”)]. Batts II held that there is a rebuttable presumption against the imposition of a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender[,] and the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the [juvenile] is -5- J-A05041-26 permanently incorrigible. Subsequently, Batts’s case was remanded to th[e trial c]ourt for resentencing. Following the decision in Batts II, in June of 2017, the Commonwealth and Batts engaged in plea negotiations and presented an [apparently] agreed-upon sentence to the Court. For the charge of murder, the Commonwealth and Batts proposed an agreed-upon sentence for a minimum period of thirty years imprisonment to a maximum period of life imprisonment. For the charge of attempted murder, the Commonwealth and Batts agreed to a sentence for a minimum period of ten years to a maximum period of twenty years imprisonment. The Commonwealth and Batts did not agree as to whether the sentence for attempted murder should run consecutive or concurrent to the sentence for murder and asked the [c]ourt to decide this issue. Thereafter, in January of 2018, [the trial court] held another sentencing hearing. Subsequent to the sentencing hearing but prior to imposing sentence, Batts made an argument based on Commonwealth v. Felder, a case pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, that if th[e trial c]ourt ran his sentence for attempted murder consecutive to his sentence for the charge of murder, for a total sentence of forty years imprisonment to life imprisonment, his total sentence constitutes a de facto life sentence. See 269 A.3d 1232, 1236 (Pa. 2022). Given Batts’s argument, the Commonwealth and Batts agreed to hold Batts’s case in abeyance pending disposition of Felder. While Felder was pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in 2021, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98, 113 (2021). In Jones, the United States Supreme Court held that Miller, the United States Supreme Court case that Batts II relied on in making its holding, did not require [a finding of] permanent incorrigibility. The United States Supreme Court noted that Montgomery v. Louisiana, a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2016, “flatly stated that Miller did not impose a formal fact[-]finding requirement[,] and that a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility is not required.” Rather, the Court stated that the sentencing court has the discretion to decide whether a life- without-parole sentence for a juvenile offender is appropriate and that the sentencing court must consider the offender’s age at the time of the offense when making that determination. -6- J-A05041-26 In February of 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Felder and recognized that Jones abrogated Batts II. [See] Felder, 269 A.3d at 1246. The [C]ourt stated: Though we might prefer the more expansive view of Miller as seen through the lens of Montgomery, we cannot ignore that Jones’s interpretation is controlling as a matter of Eighth Amendment law. And because that decision abrogates our foundational understanding in Batts II that a juvenile homicide offender cannot constitutionally receive a sentence of life without parole unless he or she is proven to be permanently incorrigible, the procedural protections we adopted in that case to ensure that result are no longer tenable as an exercise of this Court’s power of judicial administration. Id. The [C]ourt further explained that “[a] life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile murderer is thus constitutional, and hence no viable Miller claim[] exists, so long as the sentence is not mandatory.” Id. at 1243 (quoting Jones, 593 U.S. at 103). The [C]ourt stated, “[S]o long as the sentence imposed is discretionary and takes into account the offender’s youth, even if it amounts to a de facto life sentence, Miller is not violated.” Id. at 1246. On May 20, 2022, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Felder, Batts filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement from 2017. On July 14, 2022, th[e trial c]ourt denied Batts’s motion. On November 2, 2023, [the court] held a sentencing hearing. On December 1, 2023, th[e c]ourt resentenced Batts. For the charge of murder in the first degree for the murder of Edwards, Batts was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for a minimum term of forty years to maximum term of life imprisonment. For the charge of the attempted murder of Hilario, Batts was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for a minimum period of ten years to a maximum period of twenty years to run consecutive to the sentence of murder in the first degree. The [c]ourt found that the sentence for aggravated assault merged with the sentence for attempted murder. Therefore, the -7- J-A05041-26 total term of imprisonment for both charges was for a minimum period of fifty years to a maximum period of life. **** IV. December 1, 2023 Resentencing Hearing . . . At the [December 1, 2023] resentencing hearing, the [c]ourt reviewed the factual and procedural background; applicable law governing the sentencing determination; detailed the written materials the [c]ourt reviewed prior to the hearing; and received testimony and written statements from witnesses for the Commonwealth and the defense. A. Written Materials Reviewed By the Court During a conference on January 18, 2023, [and] by agreement of the parties, th[e trial c]ourt determined that the record upon which th[e c]ourt decided Batts’s previous sentences in 2014 and 2017 would be the record relied upon in the current sentencing proceeding. In addition to the record from the 2014 and 2017 sentencing hearings, at the November 2, 2023 hearing, th[e c]ourt confirmed with the Commonwealth and defense counsel that the parties agreed that the record for purposes of sentencing would be the following, all of which the [c]ourt reviewed prior to the sentencing hearing: 1) the trial transcripts; 2) the parties’ sentencing memoranda; 3) the transcript from the hearing in January 2018; 4) the transcript from the two-day sentencing hearing in 2014; 5) any testimony given on November 2, 2023; 6) the transcript from the November 2, 2023 arguments regarding sentencing; 7) the October 11, 2013 presentence investigation report [(“PSI”)] prepared at the [c]ourt’s request -8- J-A05041-26 by the Northampton County Department of Adult Probation and Parole; 8) the January 23, 2018 updated [PSI] prepared at the [c]ourt’s request by the Northampton County Department of Adult Probation and Parole; 9) the February 13, 2018 updated [PSI] prepared at the [c]ourt’s request by the Northampton County Department of Adult Probation and Parole; 10) the December 7, 2022 updated [PSI] prepared at the [c]ourt’s request by the Northampton County Department of Adult Probation and Parole; 11) the October 23, 2023 updated [PSI] prepared at the [c]ourt’s request by the Northampton County Department of Adult Probation and Parole; 12) a July 26, 2013 report by forensic psychologist Susan E. Kraus, Ph.D. [(“Dr. Kraus”)], who performed a psychological evaluation of Batts on behalf of Northampton County in connection with the presentence investigation; 13) a January 16, 2007 report by forensic psychiatrist Timothy J. Michals, M.D. [(“Dr. Michals”)], a Commonwealth expert, who performed a psychological evaluation of Batts in connection with the February 21, 2007 decertification hearing; 14) a March 12, 2014 report by Dr. Michals, who performed a second psychological evaluation of Batts in connection with this sentencing proceeding; 15) a January 12, 2007 report by forensic psychologist Steven E. Samuel, Ph.D. [(“Dr. Samuel”)], a Commonwealth expert, who performed a psychological evaluation of Batts in connection with the February 21, 2007 decertification hearing; -9- J-A05041-26 16) a November 21, 2013 report by forensic psychologist Frank M. Dattilio, Ph.D. [(“Dr. Dattilio”)], a defense expert, who performed a psychological evaluation of Batts in connection with this sentencing proceeding; 17) a December 31, 2013 sentencing memorandum by Dana Cook, M.S., [(“Cook”)] Deputy Director of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, a defense expert, who reviewed records and conducted interviews of Batts and his family members in connection with this sentencing proceeding; 18) an October 29, 2013 letter from Delores Howell, the grandmother of [] Edwards, one of the victims in this case; 19) the written statement read and submitted by Batts’s mother . . .. 20) the letter the Court received from Phillipsburg High School Principal, Gregory Troxell [(“Troxell”)]; 21) the sentencing guideline forms submitted to the [c]ourt; and 22) a card mailed to the undersigned by Gloria Senavits [(“Senavits”)], postmarked November 13, 2023. N.T.[, 12/1/23,] at 22-25. Prior to the resentencing hearing, these written materials were shared with Batts, his counsel, and the attorney for the Commonwealth. . . . [T]he [c]ourt explained that the statutory maximum for: 1) first degree murder is life without parole; 2) attempted murder is forty years [of] imprisonment; and 3) aggravated assault is ten years [of] imprisonment. [The court] explained that Batts’s conviction for aggravated assault merged with the conviction for attempted murder for purposes of sentencing. . . . - 10 - J-A05041-26 **** B. The Court’s Identification of Information Relevant to the Sentencing Factors The [c]ourt summarized the evidence relevant to the factors it was required to consider in imposing sentence, relying on the record, the trial transcripts, the sentencing memoranda submitted by the Commonwealth and the defense, the testimony and evidence presented at the resentencing hearing, and the presentence investigation and expert reports, which summarized an extensive body of information about Batts, including records maintained by schools, prisons, government agencies, and mental health professionals; the results of psychological testing; and interviews of Batts, his friends and family members, and people in the community who were affected by his crimes. 1. The Facts of the Case [The court recounted the circumstances of Batts’s murder of Edwards and attempted murder of Hilario.] 2. Batts’s Background and History At the resentencing hearing . . ., the [c]ourt detailed the history of Batts’s life, describing his birth to unwed teenaged parents; his removal from his parents’ custody due to his mother’s neglect and his father’s incarceration; his successive placements with relatives and foster families in multiple states; his exposure to bullying, violence, and sexual abuse; his difficulties in different schools; his return to his mother at age twelve; his initiation into the Bloods gang when he was in eighth grade; and his ultimate decision to move out of his parents’ house and make his home with the Bloods gang at age fourteen. **** 3. Batts’s Attack on Hilario and Edwards [The court detailed the circumstances of Batts’s crimes. Notably, Batts told Dr. Michals that no one had ordered or threatened him to coerce him to murder Edwards and shoot Hilario. However, Batts told Dr. Dattilio that he had been - 11 - J-A05041-26 threatened. Batts told Dr. Dattilio that he felt nothing after the killing except worry that he might be arrested and go to jail.] 4. Batts’s Flight to New Jersey and Subsequent Arrest [The court set forth the details of Batts’s flight, discussed above.] 5. Batt’s Trial and Incarceration . . . [T]he [c]ourt detailed Batts’s experiences during his incarceration, both while he was in Northampton County Prison awaiting trial[,] and after he was sent to a series of state prisons following his convictions and sentencing: Pretrial Incarceration After [] Batts’s arrest[], he was placed in Northampton County Prison where he remained for [twenty-one] months. While he was there he got into several fights with inmates who knew or were related to his victims. Because [] Batts was a juvenile, he was regularly confined to his cell for his own safety. [] Batts made a motion to have his case transferred to the juvenile justice system, a decertification motion. On February 21, 2007, Judge [] Moran held a hearing on the motion. The Commonwealth and defense presented fact and expert witnesses including Dr. Michals and Dr. Samuel, both of whom had evaluated [] Batts. Dr. Samuel’s report stated, quote, it is my opinion that the type of anger and rage necessary to commit the crimes of which [Batts] is charged had been evident in him since childhood and that it is very unlikely that either could be tempered or distilled from his personality within the time frame permitted by the juvenile justice system within the facilities of the juvenile justice system, end quote. Dr. Michals’s report stated, quote, given the assassination nature of this killing, it is my opinion that [] Batts, as a result of his underlying personality, - 12 - J-A05041-26 is not amenable to care, treatment, and rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. He lacks sympathy for the weak and oppressed and is often contemptuous of those who express compassion and concern for the underdog, but denying the legitimacy of tender and caring feelings, he may make the entire therapeutic process hostage to his antagonism, end quote. Judge Moran then denied [] Batts’s decertification motion, and he was tried as an adult. Education in Prison Since [] Batts has been in state prison, he has completed the following courses: Leadership development, long-term offenders, violence prevention and victim awareness program, restorative justice program, Dare to Care Program. [] Batts told Dr. Dattilio that he also completed a prevocational class on how to create a resume and apply for jobs. In the most recent presentence investigation, the records reveal that [] Batts was enrolled and completed the violence prevention moderate intensity program as well as the long-term offenders program. The presentence investigation also notes that [] Batts did not complete these programs, so it is unclear whether they were completed. [] Batts asserted that he completed his GED in 2010, although prison records reflect he began the program in 2009. The records were inconclusive to whether he completed the program; however, at this point it appears that [] Batts has, indeed, obtained his GED. Employment in Prison Because of his age, [] Batts was not employed before he went to prison; however, since he has been in prison, he has worked in the kitchen, he has cleared laundry on his cell block, and he has worked in the - 13 - J-A05041-26 barber shop. He told Dr. Dattilio that if he is ever released from prison he would like to own his own business, for example, driving a truck or operating a barbershop. Activities in Prison [] Batts participates in prison sports and fitness programs, including football, basketball, softball and weight[-]lifting. Conduct in Prison Since he has been in prison, [] Batts has been disciplined for five incidents of misconduct. On December 16, 2009, [] Batts was found guilty of refusing to obey an order and was suspended from his prison job for [fifteen] days. On February 14, 2010, [] Batts was found guilty of refusing to attend work/school mandatory classes. He was sentenced to loss of privileges for [thirty] days and suspension from his prison job for 999 days. On May 28, 2010, [] Batts was found guilty of fighting after he became involved in a heated exchange with another inmate during a basketball game. He was placed in disciplinary custody for [sixty] days, during which time he was suspended from his prison job. On August 5, 2011, [] Batts was found guilty of refusing to obey an order and . . . being in an unauthorized area. He was sentenced to cell restriction for [fifteen] days. On October 16, 2012, [] Batts was charged with possession of contraband, a pornographic magazine, and money, lying to an employee, failing to report the presence of contraband. His charges were later reduced, and he was sentenced to cell restriction for [fifteen] days. In January of 2014, [] Batts was disciplined for throwing liquid at another inmate in Northampton County Prison. - 14 - J-A05041-26 After [] Batts was resentenced, [his] only additional misconduct was a disciplinary infraction on December 22, 2018, for engaging in sexual acts with other or sodomy, a violation of visitation regulations. This was apparently from engaging in a sex act with his girlfriend during a visit. For this offense, the defendant received [six] days of disciplinary custody and [forty-five] days of the loss of privileges. According to his corrections counselor, [] Batts’s institutional adjustment can best be characterized as satisfactory. According to his counselor . . ., [] Batts is on the, quote honor block for lifers, end quote, is enrolled in barber school for which he has received above-average assessments, and he is a certified barber. He also works as a barber tutor. [] Batts told Dr. Dattilio that, although there are Bloods in prison, he has given up gang activity, and he wishes to avoid the behaviors and associations that created problems for him when he was a juvenile. The [c]ourt had heard testimony in 2014 indicating that [] Batts may have continued to associate with certain members of the Bloods gang for a period of time after he entered the prison system; however, he was never disciplined for any violent gang-related activity while in prison. 6. Batts’s Current Family Support Network . . . [T]he [c]ourt described Batts’s current family support network, which includes his mother, stepfather, and his younger brother and sister . . .. 7. Batts’s Current Feelings About his Crimes . . .[T]he [c]ourt noted that Batts has expressed remorse for his crimes and sympathy for his victims . . .. 8. Batts’s Mental Status At the resentencing hearing on December 1, 2023, the [c]ourt gave a detailed account of Batts’s mental status as reported by experts for both the Commonwealth and the defense: - 15 - J-A05041-26 Dr. Dattilio reported that [] Batts has no history of major mental illness or medical problems and no history of drug or alcohol use other than drinking beer and smoking marijuana in high school. [] Batts’s overall IQ scores are in the low average range. Although certain tests indicated that he may have a slight learning disability, his overall profile does not raise any concerns of serious neurocognitive deficits or brain damage. Dr. Michal[s]’s report states, quote, [] Batts had no history of manifestations of any mental disorder that would cause or are related to the commission of the crime for which he has been charged and convicted, end quote. [] Batts told [defense expert] Dr. Dattilio that the fights in his life have always been due to the fact that he had a, quote, bad temper. He has never taken anger management classes, although some of his anger issues were addressed in his violence prevention course in prison. [] Batts says that he has matured since he entered the prison system and has not lost his temper in recent years. Dr. Dattilio noted that [] Batts was rejected by his mother in early childhood and was never allowed to develop a sustained bond with any other caregiver except for a brief period when he appeared to have established a positive bond with his paternal grandfather. Dr. Dattilio commented on a parent/child bonding evaluation performed by a psychologist at the request of DYFS when [] Batts was [ten] years old. The evaluator concluded that [] Batts’s mother had a poor bond with her son and lacked the necessary emotional maturity, lifestyle and stability to plan for her son’s needs. Dr. Dattilio suggested that because of this weak attachment, [] Batts longed for a family life with a parent who truly cared about him. As a result, he was particularly vulnerable to recruitment by a gang, according to Dr. Dattilio. - 16 - J-A05041-26 Results of psychological tests administered at the time of [] Batts’s arrest indicated that he is driven by a desire to present an image of, quote hardboiled strength, end quote. However, Dr. Dattilio suggested that this desire may be more of a façade than an ingrained defense. Nevertheless, in commenting on the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory that [] Batts had completed in 2013, Dr. Dattilio stated individuals with this type of profile tend to show a pattern of chronic psychological maladjustment and are resistant to personality change. This certainly has the potential to exacerbate depending on the level of stress in the immediate environment. Given his personality dynamics, he is likely to have some long- term adjustment problems that are repetitive and tend to be resistant to psychological treatment, end quote. Nevertheless, Dr. Dattilio expressed the opinion that Batts could improve over time with psychotherapy. Dr. Dattilio stated, quote, there is indication that his depressive symptoms may improve with psychotherapy or with the reduction in situational stress, end quote. Dr. Dattilio cited recent research on adolescent brain development showing that adolescents are lacking in psychosocial maturity and therefore tend to display recklessness, poor judgment, lack of foresight, susceptibility to peer pressure and weak impulse control. Dr. Dattilio said that [] Batts’s young age at the time of his offense, his chaotic upbringing, his need for acceptance by his peers and his fear of Bradley all contributed to his poor decision making. Dr. Dattilio stated that, in light of [] Batts’s lack of any criminal record, the crimes he committed against Hilario and Edwards were completely out of character for him. Dr. Dattilio noted that the vast majority of adolescents who commit antisocial acts seeks those activities in adulthood and that only approximately - 17 - J-A05041-26 [five] to [ten] percent of these adolescents become chronic offenders. Dr. Dattilio noted that, although [] Batts continues to maintain some of the personality features that marked his adolescence, he now shows remorse for his crimes. Dr. Dattilio suggested that [] Batts’s behavior and thinking patterns can change as he further matured. Dr. Dattilio noted that certain treatment programs in prison are not open to inmates who are serving a life sentence. Thus, he recommended that the court modify [] Batts’s sentence to permit the possibility of parole so that [] Batts can take advantage of such treatment programs. This is a factor which the [c]ourt can consider in deciding whether to impose a term of years sentence. 9. Recommendations to the Court [The court also reviewed recommendations it had received, discussed further infra.] **** C. The Court’s Consideration of Evidence Relevant to Each of the Sentencing Factors At the resentencing hearing on December 1, 2023, having completed discussion of the information presented, the Court detailed the information that was relevant to each of the sentencing factors the [c]ourt was required to consider, organizing the information into twenty-three categories[, which largely re- synopsizes the information discussed above.] **** The [c]ourt reviewed the recommendations it had received: As noted above, the Commonwealth, the October 2013 [PSI], and Delores Howell, Edwards’s grandmother, recommended the [c]ourt resentence [] Batts to life in prison without parole. Dr. Dattilio and - 18 - J-A05041-26 Ms. Cook recommend[ed] that the [c]ourt modify [] Batts’s sentence to permit the possibility of parole. Dr. Kraus and Dr. Michals made no recommendation. Defense counsel . . . recommended a sentence of [twenty-five] years to life for both crimes and also stated that he previously submitted and agreed [to a] sentence of [thirty] years to life. [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102.1, which did not apply in this case based on the date of the convictions,] states that a defendant w