Com. v. Haughwout, G., Sr.
Com. v. Haughwout, G., Sr. No. 2257 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Guy C. Haughwout, Sr., an SVP due to a 2002 indecent assault conviction, pled guilty in 2015 to failing to provide accurate registration information and failing to comply with SVP registration requirements.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate mandatory-minimum sentence of 11 to 22 years’ incarceration under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4.
- Haughwout timely filed post-sentence motions, appealed, and raised the constitutional challenge that § 9718.4 violates Alleyne by allowing a judge to find facts that increase mandatory minimums.
- The specific contested fact was the length of the registration period (which triggers the mandatory minimum), argued to be neither a mere prior-conviction determination nor properly submitted to a jury.
- The Superior Court noted prior Superior Court precedent (Pennybaker, Hale) that treated registration-length facts as akin to prior convictions, but observed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s per curiam vacatur of Pennybaker and remand for resentencing without § 9718.4.
- Because recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions (Hopkins, Wolfe) limited the constitutionality of mandatory-minimum schemes post-Alleyne, the Superior Court vacated Haughwout’s sentence and remanded for resentencing without applying § 9718.4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4 is unconstitutional under Alleyne because it lets a judge find the registration-length fact that triggers a mandatory minimum. | Haughwout: § 9718.4 requires a judge to determine the registration period by a preponderance, increasing mandatory minimums in violation of Alleyne; registration-length is not a mere prior-conviction exception. | Commonwealth: registration-length is objectively provable and effectively equivalent to a prior conviction, so Alleyne’s jury-trial rule doesn’t apply. | The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without applying § 9718.4, following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s treatment in Pennybaker and related Alleyne-based rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be treated as elements and submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 145 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2016) (per curiam) (vacating Superior Court decision and remanding for resentencing without application of § 9718.4)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (invalidated a mandatory minimum sentencing scheme under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held certain mandatory minimums unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Hale, 128 A.3d 781 (Pa. 2015) (discussed prior-conviction exception to Alleyne principles)