Com. v. Davis, D., 2016 MDA 2015

Daniel Davis pleaded guilty to robbery, terroristic threats, simple assault, simple assault with a deadly weapon, recklessly endangering another person, and disorderly conduct.
Trial court sentenced Davis to an aggregate term of 30 to 60 months’ imprisonment on October 2, 2015.
The court applied a ‘‘deadly weapon enhancement’’ (DWE) under 204 Pa. Code § 303.10 when fashioning the sentence.
Davis filed a post-sentence motion arguing the DWE rendered his sentence excessive and that its application violated Alleyne. The court denied reconsideration.
Davis appealed, preserved Alleyne in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement but did not raise the Alleyne argument in his post-sentence motion at sentencing.
The Superior Court reviewed waiver and, alternatively, the merits of the Alleyne claim and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether application of the DWE under 204 Pa. Code § 303.10 violated Alleyne	Davis: DWE operates like a fact increasing punishment and must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under Alleyne.	Commonwealth/Trial Court: DWE does not trigger Alleyne because it does not impose a mandatory minimum and is a permissible sentencing enhancement.	Waived for failure to raise in post-sentence motion; alternatively, no Alleyne violation — DWE valid under precedent.

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (upholding constitutionality of the deadly-weapon enhancement under §303.10 against Alleyne challenge)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test for preserving and invoking discretionary-sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 2008) (challenge to application of DWE implicates discretionary aspects of sentencing)