Com. v. Ruiz, J., Jr., Com. v. Ruiz, J., Jr. No. 860 MDA 2016

Ruiz pled guilty (negotiated plea) to PWID (cocaine), criminal use of a communications facility, and criminal conspiracy; remaining charges withdrawn. He was initially sentenced to 6–20 years, which included a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 (firearm proximity).
Ruiz filed a timely PCRA petition arguing Alleyne rendered the § 9712.1 mandatory minimum unconstitutional as applied; this Court agreed and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing without consideration of § 9712.1.
On remand the Commonwealth asked the trial court to reimpose the original 6–20 year negotiated sentence, but both parties treated resentencing as an "open plea."
At resentencing the court imposed 4–10 years (bottom of standard guideline range) after considering Ruiz’s rehabilitative efforts, family involvement, lack of misconduct, and acceptance of responsibility.
The Commonwealth filed an untimely motion for reconsideration (alleging additional witness evidence and danger to the community) which the trial court denied; the Commonwealth appealed the new sentence arguing the court erred by resentencing on all counts rather than only addressing the now-invalid PWID mandatory minimum.
The Superior Court found the Commonwealth’s argument waived/unreviewable (procedural defaults, law-of-the-case concerns, and the Commonwealth’s failure to press the contractual/plea-binding argument earlier) and affirmed the judgment of sentence.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Ruiz's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by resentencing Ruiz on all counts after remand instead of limiting resentencing to the PWID count affected by Alleyne	The Commonwealth argued the trial court should have been bound to reimpose the original negotiated 6–20 year sentence (or at least only resentenced the PWID count) because Alleyne only invalidated the mandatory minimum portion	Ruiz relied on this Court’s prior ruling that § 9712.1 could not be applied; parties treated resentencing as open and the trial court had discretion to resentence on all counts	The court held the Commonwealth’s argument was waived and unreviewable (procedural failures, untimely motion, law-of-the-case and the Commonwealth’s failure to raise the argument earlier); affirmed the new 4–10 year sentence

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (mandatory fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Alleyne rendered application of § 9712.1 illegal as applied to Ruiz; remand for resentencing without considering § 9712.1)
Commonwealth v. Melendez-Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (shared misapprehension about § 9712.1 taints plea bargaining; plea may be vacated)
Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence; illegality voids the bargain)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parties and court generally bound by terms of a lawful plea agreement)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (discusses Alleyne’s retroactivity and limits on collateral relief under the PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne does not satisfy retroactivity exception to PCRA when judgment was final before Alleyne)
Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (declining to give Alleyne retroactive effect on timely collateral review when judgment was final before Alleyne)