Lawyers on both sides of the courtroom in Lehigh County are bracing for what could be an avalanche of appeals after lawmakers last month missed their deadline to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory life in prison without parole for second-degree murder.

At least 18 inmates in Lehigh County are now eligible for resentencing. While many committed crimes that fit the description of second-degree murder that has made the statute controversial — they participated in a felony that led to a killing, though they did not carry out the murder themselves — several of the defendants admitted to killing their victims, but pleaded guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the possibility of a death sentence.

“It’s not always the lookout, or the arguably innocent getaway driver who gets convicted of second-degree [murder]. It could also be a very violent and determined killer, and frequently that fact has been blurred,” Lehigh County District Attorney Gavin Holihan said.

At the center of the state Supreme Court’s March ruling on second-degree murder, alternately called felony murder, is Derek Lee, a participant in a 2014 burglary of a western Pennsylvania home that left a man dead. Lee’s co-conspirator fatally shot the victim while Lee was in another room. Still, Lee was convicted of second-degree murder and automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

After the court found Lee’s sentence unconstitutional, the justices gave lawmakers 120 days to write new sentencing laws. Although the House and Senate each passed a bill, they failed to reach an agreement on minimum sentences and other details before the July 24 deadline. This means the court’s ruling has now taken effect, allowing Lee’s resentencing to proceed and requiring judges to use their discretion when sentencing people in current and future second-degree murder cases.

Lawmakers still can pass a new sentencing law. Until they do, the question of whether the ruling will be retroactive and apply to the more than 1,100 people serving life without parole for second-degree murder statewide remains unanswered.

Lehigh County Chief Public Defender Kim Makoul said she believes it will become retroactive, based on prior rulings on persons who were sentenced to life in prison for crimes committed as juveniles. All of those defendants were granted new sentencings.

Makoul said her office is notifying inmates who are eligible and preparing appeals under the Post Conviction Relief Act, which allows for arguments based on the constitutionality of a sentence. The ruling was the right decision, she said, since most of the cases involve people who did not actually carry out a murder.

“Think of the lookout who does not go in the house but still gets the same sentence as the person who kills the homeowner. I’ve always thought it was inappropriate and, frankly, outrageous that there could be no distinction between those individuals. Because logic dictates that there should be an ability to argue that to a court,” Makoul said.

Holihan said his office is also preparing. Some of the cases are decades old, forcing investigators to retrieve them from archives. Tracking down victims’ families may be an unpleasant task, he said.

“All of the victims in these cases have loved ones left behind who have been assured, up till recently, that the perpetrator will spend the rest of their life in jail. And now that’s no longer true. That’s left to prosecutors and law enforcement to deal with,” he said.

The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association is also concerned about victims and called one proposed fix, which would make inmates eligible for parole after 30 years “deeply flawed.” The association said it was hopeful that legislators would keep working.

“The PDAA is committed to seeking justice for crime victims and their families. We believe it is possible to enact legislation that provides appropriate sentencing alternatives for cases that do not warrant life imprisonment, while preserving the option of life sentences for those that do,” the association said in a statement.

Northampton County District Attorney Stephen Baratta said that no appeals have been filed in his county yet, though there are people serving second-degree murder sentences from decades ago. He did not know how many in total.

Baratta, a former county judge, said he understands why the statute needed to be addressed.

“I can realize what the social justice issues might be, because there are people who have been convicted of participating in a murder and they did not pull the trigger or kill the person, they were just an accomplice. They might have a legitimate argument that they had no intent to kill someone, but the statute didn’t provide any relief for them. In those cases maybe it’s appropriate for the court to look at the facts and make an independent decision on whether life without parole is the appropriate resolution,” Baratta said.

The problem with the second-degree murder statute, Holihan said, is that it covers such a wide arrange of murders. Given the option, jurors squeamish about having to decide whether to impose a death sentence after a first-degree murder conviction will compromise and choose second-degree. The defendant gets life, and their job is done.

Second-degree may also be offered to a killer who wants to avoid death row in exchange for pleading guilty. That was the offer made to Win Min Htut, a West Bethlehem man who on Dec. 17, 2013, shot his wife to death in front of their three daughters, ages 16, 10, and 3.

Htut had a history of abusing his wife. Just hours before the killing, a judge had granted her a protection-from-abuse order, barring Htut from the home. Htut ignored the order.

With no new law laying out a minimum sentence for second-degree murder, it will be up to individual judges to decide appropriate sentences. Lawyers on both sides of the issue remain hopeful that the Legislature will come up with a fix before inmates start returning to court for resentencing.

“Guidance from the Legislature is needed to have a fair sentencing structure. We want consistency and clarity in sentencing across the commonwealth. The way it stands today is the exact opposite of that,” Holihan said.