Commonwealth, Aplt v. Dimatteo, P.
177 A.3d 182
| Pa. | 2018Background
- Phillip DiMatteo pleaded guilty (open plea) to multiple PWID counts and related offenses in Nov. 2012; the trial court imposed mandatory minimums under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 in Feb. 2013, producing an aggregate 15–30 year term.
- DiMatteo filed a timely PCRA petition in May 2014 (claiming counsel was ineffective and challenging the mandatory minimums); Alleyne v. United States was decided June 17, 2013 (while his judgment was not yet final).
- The Superior Court vacated DiMatteo’s sentence and remanded for resentencing based on Alleyne; the Commonwealth sought review, pointing to this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Washington that Alleyne does not apply retroactively to final judgments on collateral review.
- This Court granted review to determine whether Alleyne-based relief is available in a timely PCRA petition where the defendant’s judgment of sentence was not final when Alleyne was decided, and to identify the appropriate remedy.
- The Court held § 7508 unconstitutional under Alleyne and concluded DiMatteo was entitled to PCRA relief because Alleyne became applicable before his judgment became final; the appropriate remedy was vacatur of the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing without § 7508.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DiMatteo) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne-based challenge is available in a timely PCRA where judgment was not final when Alleyne issued | Alleyne applies because DiMatteo’s judgment was not final on June 17, 2013; thus he can obtain relief in a timely PCRA | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; Washington forecloses Alleyne relief | Held for DiMatteo — Alleyne applies where judgment was not final when announced, so PCRA relief is available |
| Whether § 7508 is constitutional under Alleyne | § 7508 is unconstitutional because it treats sentencing facts as non-elements, permits judicial factfinding by preponderance | Commonwealth conceded in practice but argued timing/retroactivity defeated relief here | Held § 7508 violates Alleyne and is an illegal sentencing statute |
| Whether Washington bars relief here | DiMatteo: Washington governs only final-judgment collateral cases; not applicable where judgment was not final | Commonwealth: Washington prevents Alleyne relief on collateral review broadly | Held Washington does not bar relief because it addressed final judgments; this case involved a nonfinal judgment when Alleyne issued |
| Appropriate remedy (vacatur of plea vs. resentencing without § 7508) | DiMatteo: open plea; no negotiated sentencing bargain; remedy is vacatur of illegal sentence and resentencing without § 7508 | Commonwealth: remedy should restore parties to pre-plea status (vacate plea) because Commonwealth gave up counts relying on mandatory minimums | Held vacatur of the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing without consideration of § 7508 (no vacatur of plea required given open plea and record) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be treated as an element, submitted to a jury, proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing maximum punishment must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactive application of new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively to cases with final judgments on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne sentencing challenges implicate legality of sentence and are non-waivable on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne rendered certain mandatory-minimum sentencing provisions unconstitutional; resentencing remedy affirmed)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (invalidating a mandatory-minimum statute under Alleyne principles)
- Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 131 A.3d 54 (Pa. Super. 2015) (timely PCRA where judgment not final at Alleyne entitled petitioner to resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreting Alleyne’s application on direct review)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Negron, 123 A.3d 1087 (Pa. Super. 2015) (when plea negotiations are premised on an erroneous shared understanding of sentencing exposure, plea may be vacated)