Com. v. Bryan, T.
1048 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 18, 2016Background
- Thomas Michael Bryan pleaded guilty on June 3, 2011 to multiple PWID counts and one conspiracy count and was sentenced to 7–14 years’ incarceration plus 10 years’ probation pursuant to a plea agreement.
- At sentencing the Commonwealth introduced 14 photographs it said showed multiple firearms where drugs and drug proceeds were found and argued a weapons enhancement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 applied.
- The trial court accepted the plea but after the Commonwealth’s presentation determined the weapons enhancement applied and concluded Bryan was ineligible for RRRI (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive) relief.
- Bryan did not file a direct appeal; he filed timely PCRA petitions alleging sentencing counsel was ineffective and arguing he was statutorily eligible for RRRI because he was not sentenced under § 9712.1.
- The PCRA court denied relief, holding the sentencing order relied on the weapons enhancement and rendered Bryan RRRI-ineligible; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bryan statutorily eligible for RRRI? | Bryan: He was not sentenced under § 9712.1, so he meets RRRI eligibility requirements. | Commonwealth/Trial Court: Photographs and the court’s sentencing determination establish the § 9712.1 weapons enhancement applied, making him RRRI-ineligible. | Court: Affirmed the PCRA court — the record shows the weapons enhancement was applied, so Bryan is not RRRI-eligible. |
| Is the challenge to RRRI eligibility a legality-of-sentence claim reviewable on PCRA? | Bryan: Implicitly contends eligibility error supports relief. | Commonwealth: Legality claims are reviewable; here the sentencing was legal under existing precedent and record. | Court: Treated claim as legality of sentence, reviewed de novo, and found no error. |
| Does Alleyne (mandatory-minimum/element issue) entitle Bryan to relief retroactively? | Bryan: Not raised as primary, but related to weapons enhancement constitutionality post-Alleyne. | Commonwealth: Alleyne is not retroactive to collateral review per Pennsylvania Supreme Court authority. | Court: Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Bryan’s sentence (final in 2011) gains no relief from Alleyne. |
| Did the trial court err in failing to make RRRI eligibility determination at sentencing? | Bryan: Court should have found him eligible absent a § 9712.1 sentence. | Commonwealth: Court expressly considered and determined ineligibility based on admitted record evidence. | Court: No error; trial court made the determination and PCRA court correctly affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipinski v. Commonwealth, 841 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 2004) (challenge to sentencing authority is a legality-of-sentence claim)
- Hansley v. Commonwealth, 994 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. 2010) (RRRI sentencing authority challenges analyzed as sentencing issues)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 7 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2010) (challenge to court’s power to impose a given sentence is a legality question)
- Brougher v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for legality of sentence is de novo)
- Newman v. Commonwealth, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing constitutional problems with § 9712.1 after Alleyne)
- Watley v. Commonwealth, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence issues are nonwaivable and may be raised sua sponte)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively on collateral review only when expressly held so by higher courts)