Com. v. Tinoco, A., 3006 EDA 2014

Abel Tinoco pled guilty (July 18, 2013) to three counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and one count of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity; parties agreed to an aggregate 9–18 year sentence.
The Commonwealth invoked the mandatory minimum in 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(iii) on one count (7–14 years and $50,000 fine) because the aggregate cocaine weight exceeded 100 grams and there was a claimed prior drug‑trafficking conviction.
Tinoco filed a timely PCRA petition (May 12, 2014). The PCRA court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing; Tinoco appealed.
Tinoco raised (1) that the § 7508 mandatory minimum did not apply because the PWID convictions were entered together (so there was no prior conviction), and (2) that § 7508 is unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States.
The Superior Court held that, under Alleyne and subsequent Pennsylvania precedent, § 7508 is facially unconstitutional; it vacated Tinoco’s guilty plea and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 7508 mandatory minimum (7–14 years) applies when multiple PWID convictions arise from the same indictment	Tinoco: No prior drug‑trafficking conviction existed because all convictions were entered together; § 7508 therefore does not apply	Commonwealth: A conviction in a multi‑count complaint can serve as a prior conviction for § 7508 purposes (sequential conviction not required)	Court declined to decide this issue on the merits but observed Vasquez supports the Commonwealth’s position
Whether § 7508 is unconstitutional under Alleyne because it permits judge‑found facts to increase mandatory minimums	Tinoco: Alleyne requires any fact that increases penalty to be an element found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; § 7508 therefore is unconstitutional	Commonwealth: (Implicit) § 7508 remains applicable; parties proceeded under its terms at plea	Held: § 7508 is facially unconstitutional under Alleyne and related Pennsylvania precedent; sentence (and plea) vacated and case remanded to restore status quo before plea

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact that increases mandatory penalty must be treated as an element for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014) (applying Alleyne to invalidate mandatory minimum sentencing provision)
Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne renders certain mandatory minimum provisions unconstitutional)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 753 A.2d 807 (Pa. 2000) (a conviction in a multi‑count complaint can be counted as a prior conviction for enhancement purposes)
Commonwealth v. Gentry, 101 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a defendant cannot legally agree to an illegal sentence; plea bargains premised on illegal sentences are void)
Commonwealth v. Melendez‑Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (plea negotiations premised on an erroneous application of a mandatory minimum are fundamentally tainted)