Man serving life wants new sentence
An inmate serving a life sentence in state prison has a procedural hurdle to clear in Washington County Court as he seeks a new sentence in a murder he committed during a 1994 robbery at a Peters Township convenience store shortly after his 18th birthday.
In an order filed Sept. 1, Judge Gary Gilman gave Jonathan Thomas, now 39, until Oct. 1 to respond to Gilman’s ruling Thomas failed to initiate his bid for a new sentence – based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents in cases involving juveniles who were given mandatory sentences of life in prison – on time.
Attorney Mark Rubenstein, who represents Thomas, said he expects to file a response before the deadline in an attempt to persuade Gilman to reconsider the decision.
He said Thomas’ attempt at receiving a new sentence should be decided on its merits instead of a technicality.
“Jonathan Thomas presents almost an ideal case for the court to decide whether to extend (two recent Supreme Court decisions) should extend to somebody who was acting way less than 18 at the time” of their offense.
In a motion filed June 28 and during a hearing Aug. 15, Rubenstein asserted they should.
The first, issued in 2012, deemed mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders unconstitutional and said courts “must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest penalty possible for juvenile offenders,” Rubenstein wrote.
In the second, on Jan. 25, the court applied its first ruling retroactively, ordering resentencing for all juvenile offenders already serving mandatory sentences of life without parole.
Thomas fatally shot Phap “Jimmy” Nguyen, 32, during an early-morning robbery Dec. 11, 1994, at A Plus Mini Mart in Peters Township that netted $283. His 18th birthday was five weeks earlier.
He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and robbery. He was sentenced by then-judge Thomas Gladden to life without parole in 1997.
Rubenstein asserted the rationale of these rulings “absolutely applies to (Thomas), given not only his age barely over 18, but also his significant mental health and developmental issues.”
Among the elements of Thomas’ history Rubenstein cited were neuropsychological tests that reveal “marked deficits in memory encoding, memory retrieval and other key cognitive processes;” IQ scores that place Thomas in the bottom fifth percentile of people his age; “a significant closed head injury at age 6 which has affected his behavioral abnormalities;” “many other areas of impairment which have affected his cognitive abilities;” and at least five psychiatric hospitalizations before he turned 17.
In a response to Rubenstein’s motion, Deputy District Attorney Jerry Moschetta argued that Thomas’ request fell outside the window when he could file it.
Moschetta also wrote the 2012 ruling “clearly said the right being recognized by the Supreme Court clearly pertained to offenders under the age of 18 years” and went on to point out that in Thomas case, “the petitioner alleges that he was over the age of 18 when the underlying crimes were committed.”