DANIELLE OHL/Spotlight PA - Spotlight PA
•9/10/2026
In the face of legislative inaction, four people serving mandatory life for second-degree murder want the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to step in and open a pathway for sentences like theirs to be reconsidered.
Their Thursday morning filings ask the court to intervene quickly through a rare legal process known as a King’s Bench petition. This type of filing allows the state Supreme Court to take up a legal matter directly, bypassing lower courts and the typical appeals process, if it deems the issue urgent.
Since 2021, the court has received 288 such petitions, but agreed to hear only a few. These include a 2022 petition regarding undated mail ballots and a 2023 petition seeking a review of Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s handling of post-conviction cases.
The state Supreme Court ruled this March that sentencing a person to mandatory life without parole without considering the role they played in a murder is unnecessarily cruel under the Pennsylvania Constitution. It stayed its ruling until July 24 to give the General Assembly time to correct the unconstitutional sentencing laws.
The justices also did not make the ruling retroactive, leaving the executive and legislative branches to determine how to handle people currently serving such a sentence (something, the ruling notes, Gov. Josh Shapiro requested in an amicus brief). However, amid deep disagreements over how to proceed, the divided legislature adjourned in July without sending Shapiro legislation that addresses the ruling.
The Thursday petitions turn back to the high court and ask the justices to rectify an “unjust situation,” whereby the four petitioners and more than 1,000 others like them remain incarcerated for life on past mandatory sentences for second-degree murder, while those convicted of the same charge in courts today can receive lesser punishment.
“People who have served decades in prison … are at risk of never seeing the benefit of this Court’s ruling with further delay,” the petitions argue. “Resolution of this issue serves the public interest by preventing the continued enforcement of unconstitutional cruel sentences at substantial expense to taxpayers.”
A killing is considered second-degree murder if it occurs during the course of a violent felony, including robbery, rape, or arson. Someone can be found guilty of the crime if they participated in the underlying felony, even if their actions didn’t lead directly to another person’s death.
Because of this, a person in Pennsylvania who served as a getaway driver during a botched robbery, or caused an injury that later led to death, previously received the same sentence as someone who knowingly plotted and carried out a killing.
Under the court’s March ruling in Commonwealth v. Lee, judges can still sentence such defendants to life without parole but are no longer required to. The legislature could change that in the future, but in the absence of action, county-level Common Pleas Court judges must use their best judgment when sentencing people convicted of second-degree murder going forward.
Thursday’s petitions do not ask the court to address what should happen to people who will be sentenced now and in the future. They focus instead on what should happen to the more than 1,100 people who are currently in state prisons serving mandatory life sentences for the same crime.
The petitioners — John Marshall Payne III, Lori Ann Lassiter, Marsha Scaggs, and Cecil Holmes — are four such people.
All four are represented by the Abolitionist Law Center and Phillips Black, nonprofit firms that focus on incarcerated clients. Payne and Lassiter are also represented by the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, a pro bono firm that seeks to overturn wrongful convictions. Payne is additionally represented by law firm Troutman Pepper Locke.
Payne, a 70-year-old man, was convicted in 1986 for a murder that took place during a robbery.
The prosecution alleged Payne was one of three people who robbed 90-year-old Elsie Rishel in 1981. During the robbery, someone struck Rishel with a phone, causing an injury that later resulted in her death, according to the petition. At trial, another defendant testified he had never met Payne. But three state’s witnesses, including two jailhouse informants who testified in exchange for reduced charges in their own cases, connected him to the crime. Payne has maintained his innocence.
Lassiter, a 62-year-old woman, was convicted in October 1989 for initiating a robbery that led to a death. Lassiter has also maintained her innocence, according to the petition, but even in the prosecution’s version of events, Lassiter did not kill the victim, cab driver Eddie Byrd.
Scaggs, a 62-year-old woman, was convicted in 1988 for participating in the kidnapping and murder of Joseph Supples. When a co-defendant ordered Scaggs to shoot Supples, she refused, according to the petition. The co-defendant killed him instead.
Holmes, a 70-year-old man, was convicted in 1980 for acting as a lookout during an attempted robbery, during which his co-defendant stabbed the victim, Joseph Melvin.
All four petitions ask the court to hold that the ruling in Lee is retroactive to all people serving mandatory life sentences for second-degree murder, to open up a pathway to resentencing.
As of now, the petitioners have “no legal recourse” to remedy their unconstitutional sentences, the filings argue.
The Post Conviction Relief Act, which gives people who have exhausted their appeals further recourse, requires petitioners to file within a year of their final judgment date, unless a new constitutional right has been established and that right applies retroactively.
Because many are serving sentences for decades-old cases, any PCRA petitions they file are likely to be dismissed as untimely, setting up “a fundamental inequity,” the filings argue.
The petitions also ask the justices to anticipate and prepare for similar situations in the future. Should the court strike down sentencing schemes unconstitutional under the cruel punishment clause moving forward, the petitioners want the court to automatically make such rulings retroactive.
There is no mandated timeline for the state Supreme Court to consider a King’s Bench petition — the justices can accept or reject it at any time. Even if the court agrees to hear the petition, the process could take years. And if the court eventually makes its ruling retroactive, the road ahead is still unclear for people serving life for second-degree murder.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court could lay out conditions for resentencing similar to those that the U.S. Supreme Court laid out in the cases Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana.
In 2012, Miller made mandatory life sentences for people who committed crimes as children unconstitutional. Four years later, Montgomery made the Miller ruling retroactive, and directed trial courts to consider age — and related factors including maturity and family environment — in resentencing.
Pennsylvania had the largest number of so-called “juvenile lifers” in the country. Nearly everyone in this group was resentenced through the trial courts. Of the roughly 330 individuals who have since been released from prison, only 15 have been recommitted for new convictions, according to state statistics.
Everyone who has been sentenced to life, including those serving for second-degree murder, must be granted parole in order to leave prison. Parole is a lifelong status for anyone who receives it after being sentenced to life. If they violate their parole, they go back to prison.
It is unclear if the Democratic-controlled state House and Republican-led Senate will make additional attempts to reach a legislative compromise when both chambers are in Harrisburg later this month.
Before the summer recess, each chamber passed legislation that had no chance of advancing through the other. State Senate Republicans held news conferences and sent a flurry of news releases and campaign messages, excoriating House Democrats for refusing to engage with their legislation and accusing their colleagues of failing murder victims.
In separate statements to Spotlight PA, both Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R., Indiana) and Sen. Scott Martin (R., Lancaster) said they hoped House Democrats would be willing to work with the state Senate to find resolution.
Martin, who is also part of Senate Republican leadership, raised the difficulty of the situation for the families of victims, who “were impacted by the court’s ruling.”
“The uncertainty they now face and having their old wounds reopened has to be unbearable,” he said.
Pittman noted that his caucus has advanced legislation that received votes from some Democrats and is supported by law enforcement officials and groups, including Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday.
“We are always willing to have conversations about meaningful legislation to keep our communities safer, but we will not entertain watered down bills pushed for by House Democrats that even further expand the ability for serious criminals to get out of jail through such processes as medical parole,” he said.
State House Democrats, who did not provide new comment by Spotlight PA’s deadline, have taken a more staid approach. The few statements they issued focused on the merits of their policy solutions.
“Justice is not measured solely by the length of a sentence,” wrote the Legislative Black Caucus in their own statement. “It is measured by whether our laws are constitutional, equitable and effective. We can support victims, protect our communities, and still recognize that accountability, rehabilitation and redemption are not mutually exclusive; they are essential components of a justice system worthy of public trust.”
This story was originally published by Spotlight PA and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
