The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to determine whether defendants who received mandatory life sentences as juveniles can be ordered to pay court costs associated with resentencing proceedings that were necessitated by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark rulings in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana.

The justices issued separate orders June 25 in two similar cases, both out of York County.

In Commonwealth v. Lehman, the court agreed to consider “whether the Pennsylvania Superior Court erred as a matter of law by holding that the costs relating to contested expert testimony in a contested resentencing do not constitute costs of prosecution under 16 P.S. Section 1403,[ ] and are ineligible for imposition upon a defendant reimbursement as part of a sentence as a matter of law rather than the sentencing court's discretion.”

In Commonwealth v. Davis, the justices took up the question of “whether costs relating to sentencing, and costs relating to re-sentencing, constitute 'costs of prosecution and trial' under 16 P.S. Section 1403.”

Earlier this year in Lehman, a three-judge Superior Court panel unanimously affirmed a York County judge's resentencing of defendant Michael Lehman to 30 years to life in prison, but vacated the part of the trial court's decision requiring Lehman to pay $15,000 in court costs.

Judge Judith Ference Olson, writing for the panel in a Jan. 4 opinion, said it would be unreasonable to require a defendant to pay for court proceedings “necessitated by evolution of constitutional law.”

“After consideration, we hold that, although appellant's sentence of imprisonment is lawful, a trial court lacks authority to impose costs associated with a resentencing proceeding necessitated by the imposition of a prior illegal sentence,” Olson said.

Olson was joined by Judges Anne Lazarus and John Musmanno.

In Davis, a different three-judge panel, led by Musmanno, similarly ruled in March to uphold defendant Scott Davis' resentencing for first-degree murder under Miller and Montgomery to 40 years to life in prison, but vacated the portion of the new sentence that called for him to pay the costs associated with the resentencing proceedings.

“Here, the trial court resentenced Davis, in part, to pay costs that were purportedly incurred by the commonwealth relative to Davis's resentencing,” Musmanno said. “As we have determined that, under 16 P.S. Section 1403, 'prosecution' ends at the time of a conviction or acquittal, the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by ordering Davis to pay the costs relative to his resentencing. Moreover, Davis's resentencing, through no fault of his own, occurred only after his sentence was deemed unconstitutional, and he should not be liable for such costs.”

In interpreting Section 1403 to exclude costs associated with sentencing proceedings, the Davis court reasoned that “because the purpose of imposing the costs of prosecution against the defendant is to reimburse the commonwealth for the expenses incurred preparing a case for, and conducting, a trial, 'prosecution' ends with the conviction or acquittal of the defendant.”

James Zamkotowicz, who is handling both cases on behalf of the York County District Attorney's Office, said, “We're pleased that the court is going to review the issue.”

Counsel for Davis, Marc Bookman of Atlantic Center for Capital Representation in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment; nor could Lehman's attorney, William Graff of York.