Com. v. Barnhart, L.
774 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Leeland R. Barnhart (age 35) was convicted of multiple sexual offenses for repeated sexual contact with a 15‑year‑old female over July–August 2011, including involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), statutory sexual assault, and aggravated indecent assault.
- On direct appeal the Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated a mandatory 10‑year minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7) as unconstitutional under Alleyne and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand (April 22, 2016) Barnhart was resentenced to an aggregate term of 5–10 years’ incarceration.
- Barnhart appealed the resentencing, raising: (1) alleged Rule 600(B)(5) violation and habeas relief for delay in sentencing after remand; (2) challenge to constitutionality/effect of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.1 on parole and treatment eligibility under Alleyne; (3) claims that IDSI sentencing is overbroad/disproportionate and discriminates against homosexual conduct; and (4) trial‑error claim about a jury verdict slip.
- The Superior Court rejected all claims and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Barnhart's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B)(5) (120‑day limit after remand) barred continued incarceration and warranted habeas relief | Rule 600(B)(5) applied after remand for resentencing; sentencing delay exceeded 120 days so habeas release required | Rule 600(B)(5) applies to pretrial incarceration awaiting retrial; Barnhart was post‑conviction (awaiting resentencing), so the rule does not apply | Court held Rule 600(B)(5) did not apply to post‑conviction incarceration awaiting resentencing; habeas relief not warranted |
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.1 (sex‑offender treatment/parole eligibility) is unconstitutional under Alleyne | Section 9718.1 requires findings (e.g., victim age) that increase punishment without jury finding; thus unconstitutional and should affect parole immediately | Alleyne does not render § 9718.1 unconstitutional; parole is administrative (no right) and does not alter the sentence | Court held Alleyne does not invalidate § 9718.1; lack of parole does not change sentence and there is no right to parole |
| Whether sentencing for IDSI is unconstitutionally overbroad/disproportionate or discriminatory (treats oral/deviate sex harsher; discriminates against homosexuals) | IDSI punishes ‘‘deviate’’ acts (oral sex) more severely than heterosexual intercourse; Obergefell establishes sexual orientation as protected class, so differential treatment is unconstitutional | The comparison is improper: Barnhart conflates felony gradings (first vs. second degree) and ignores that the same acts can be charged under different statutes; Obergefell did not create the asserted basis to challenge sentencing here and he lacks standing | Court held the sentencing scheme is not facially overbroad or discriminatory; comparisons were false and the claim fails |
| Whether the trial court erred by giving an improper jury verdict slip (alleged trial error) | The verdict slip prevented correct jury consideration of dates/elements | This was a trial‑stage claim that should have been raised on direct appeal or in PCRA; not cognizable on resentencing appeal | Court dismissed the claim as not properly before it on resentencing and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (same‑sex couples have right to marry)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (Alleyne application in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Gaito, 419 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. 1980) (trial errors cannot be raised for first time at resentencing)
- Rivenbark v. Commonwealth, 501 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1985) (parole is administrative and does not affect sentence)