Com. v. Young, M., 1663 EDA 2013

Police used a confidential informant (CI) to make controlled buys from Monroe Young across three days; CI purchases and officer surveillance supported probable cause for a search warrant.
A search of Apartment B at 3325 N. 22nd St. yielded crack cocaine in packaging matching the buys, drug paraphernalia, $303, and a semiautomatic handgun with an obliterated serial number in a dresser containing mail and ID bearing Young’s name.
Young was convicted after a nonjury (bench) trial of PWID, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (VUFA), criminal use of a communication facility, possession of a controlled substance, PIC, and possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number.
The trial court imposed concurrent sentences including a mandatory 5‑year minimum on the PWID conviction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 based on the court’s finding of constructive possession of a firearm.
The Superior Court initially affirmed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted limited review and remanded for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Wolfe.
On remand, relying on Wolfe, Hopkins, and Barnes, the Superior Court vacated Young’s sentence (and the entire judgment of sentence) and remanded for resentencing without application of § 9712.1.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Young's Argument	Held
Whether the mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 produced an illegal sentence under Alleyne/Wolfe	§ 9712.1 applied because the bench trial court found constructive possession of a firearm, allowing imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum	§ 9712.1 is unconstitutional under Alleyne (and as reiterated in Wolfe/Hopkins) because it requires judge-made factfinding at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence	The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing: § 9712.1 is void for the purposes here and cannot support the mandatory minimum; resentencing without § 9712.1 is required

Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held sentencing statute requiring judge factfinding at sentencing was non-severable and void under Alleyne)
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (held mandatory sentencing provision invalid under Alleyne; judicial factfinding at sentencing unacceptable)
Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Superior Court held § 9712.1 unconstitutional under Alleyne where sentencing relied on judge factfinding)
Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (discussed issue-preservation principles relevant to sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (on remand, trial court may reconsider entire sentence where appellate ruling alters sentencing authority)