Com. v. Cisne, J., 2078 EDA 2014

Background

Jason Cisne was charged in Philadelphia with murder and firearm-related offenses for the 2003 killing of Phillip Underwood; he was ineligible to possess a firearm due to a prior felony.
On March 1, 2010, Cisne pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime (PIC), and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (VUFA) pursuant to a negotiated recommendation of an aggregate 25–50 years, to run concurrently with unrelated sentences he was already serving.
The written and oral plea colloquies referenced the recommended 25–50 years; neither colloquy mentioned any mandatory minimum sentence.
Cisne pursued collateral relief under the PCRA; appellate courts remanded for issues including counsel’s failure to file a requested direct appeal and for proper Anders/Santiago compliance by appellate counsel.
On review, the Superior Court found a discrepancy in the certified record: the written sentencing sheet for the third-degree murder count had the “mandatory sentence” box checked, suggesting a mandatory minimum was applied despite no oral pronouncement or plea agreement reference.
The Superior Court: (1) rejected challenges to plea voluntariness as frivolous given the plea colloquy, (2) vacated the third-degree murder sentence and remanded for resentencing without any mandatory minimum, and (3) otherwise affirmed the judgment and denied counsel’s petition to withdraw.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was involuntary/induced by counsel’s promise of a lower sentence	Cisne: plea was induced by counsel’s promise of 20–40 years and thus involuntary	Commonwealth/trial court: colloquy shows Cisne knew charges, consequences, recommended 25–50 years, and affirmed voluntariness	Waived/Frivolous — plea deemed knowing and voluntary based on colloquy and written plea form
Whether a mandatory-minimum sentence (42 Pa.C.S. § 9712) was applied in violation of Alleyne	Cisne: sentencing included a § 9712 mandatory minimum (he attached an undated notice) so sentence is unconstitutional	Commonwealth: record lacks evidence that a mandatory minimum was actually imposed; no oral mention at sentencing	Mixed — superior court found the written sentencing sheet checked “mandatory,” creating a discrepancy; remanded for resentencing on third-degree murder without any mandatory minimum
Legality of imposing the new 25–50 year aggregate concurrent to existing sentences	Cisne: argues sentence is illegal because it runs concurrently with existing sentences	Commonwealth: plea agreement recommended concurrent aggregate sentence; court had discretion on internal allocation	Rejected — court’s allocation among counts was within its discretion and consistent with plea agreement
Sufficiency of appellate counsel’s Anders/Santiago compliance and motion to withdraw	Cisne: sought appointed counsel to litigate direct appeal issues; earlier counsel failed to file proper Anders brief	Counsel: ultimately filed an Anders brief; initial filings were deficient leading to remand and appointment of new counsel	Superior Court found final counsel complied sufficiently with Anders/Santiago; denied counsel’s petition to withdraw and conducted independent review; counsel’s earlier failures warranted appointment of new counsel earlier

Key Cases Cited

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (state-specific elaboration of Anders brief requirements)
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applies Alleyne to strike sentencing statutes that increase mandatory minimums via non-jury factfinding)
Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (extends Alleyne/Newman logic to invalidate mandatory-minimum provisions determined at sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (discusses effect of Alleyne on Pennsylvania sentencing statutes)