Commonwealth v. Bourgeois

Michael Bourgeois was sentenced to two consecutive life without parole sentences for offenses committed when he was 17 years old. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, Mr. Bourgeois was resentenced to two consecutive sentences of 40 years to life, which amount to a de facto life without parole sentence.

Juvenile Law Center filed a brief in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on behalf of Mr. Bourgeois, arguing that a de facto life without parole sentence cannot be constitutionally imposed on a youth without a finding of permanent incorrigibility, and that the trial court committed a legal error by failing to consider the Miller factors on the record before sentencing. Our brief also argued that, alternatively, the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Mr. Bourgeois to a de facto life sentence despite his status as a youth and his demonstrated rehabilitation. 

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that Mr. Bourgeois’s sentence does not constitute an impermissible de facto life without parole sentence, that the trial court was not required to conduct an on-the-record examination of the Miller factors before sentencing, and that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sentence.

Juvenile Law Center filed a petition for allowance of appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The petition argued that Mr. Bourgeois’ sentence is illegal under Commonwealth v. Machicote because the trial court failed to consider the Miller factors on the record. The petition further argued that the Court should grant review to determine if consecutive sentences that amount to a de facto life sentence are unconstitutional where the Commonwealth has not met its burden to prove the defendant is incapable of rehabilitation.  

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Mr. Bourgeois’s petition for allowance of appeal.

In May 2023, Juvenile Law Center and law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Mr. Bourgeois. The petition argued that the sentencing court abused its discretion in sentencing Mr. Bourgeois to de facto life despite the evidence of rehabilitation presented at his resentencing hearing, in violation of the Pennsylvania constitution's ban on cruel punishment.