Com. v. Melendez-Negron, J., Jr.
123 A.3d 1087
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Police entered Melendez‑Negron’s home after a noise complaint, observed a firearm and indicia of drug distribution, executed a warrant, and charged him with PWID and related drug offenses.
- Commonwealth gave notice it would seek the mandatory minimum enhancement under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721.1 based on firearm possession.
- On November 15, 2013, Melendez‑Negron pleaded guilty in a negotiated plea and received 5–10 years on the PWID count (mandatory minimum applied) plus shorter penalties on other counts.
- He did not file a direct appeal; filed a pro se PCRA petition in July 2014 and an amended PCRA petition asserting counsel’s ineffectiveness in light of Alleyne v. United States.
- The PCRA court granted relief, vacated the sentence, and ordered resentencing; Commonwealth appealed.
- Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s relief but concluded the plea itself was tainted and therefore vacated the guilty plea and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Melendez‑Negron to plead when the mandatory minimum (§ 9721.1) was arguably unconstitutional after Alleyne | Counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge § 9721.1 and advising acceptance of a plea that relied on it | Counsel reasonably relied on existing Pennsylvania law and could not be faulted for not predicting appellate developments | Held: Counsel was ineffective; Alleyne and intervening Pennsylvania authority put counsel on notice such that failing to challenge § 9721.1 had no reasonable basis and resulted in prejudice |
| Whether the Commonwealth should be returned to the pre‑plea status quo (i.e., preserve plea benefits) rather than allow vacatur/resentencing | Commonwealth argued vacating the sentence frustrates plea bargain expectations and strips it of benefits it conceded | Melendez‑Negron argued the plea was entered under a mutual misapprehension about an illegal mandatory minimum and relief is warranted | Held: The plea negotiations were tainted by a shared, material misapprehension that § 9721.1 applied; plea vacated and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory minimum increases that raise statutory floor must be treated as elements and submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (applying Alleyne to § 9721.1 as‑applied)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (Alleyne implications for Pennsylvania mandatory minimum scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 738 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stipulations or admissions do not cure Alleyne problem)
- Commonwealth v. Hodges, 789 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 2002) (plea tainted where parties negotiated based on an illegal/unenforceable maximum sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Lenhoff, 796 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same principle: plea negotiations skewed by incorrect sentence grading)
- Commonwealth v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective assistance standard summarized)