Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K.
117 A.3d 247
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Direct appeal challenging constitutionality and severability of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317(a) (drug-free school zones) after Alleyne v. United States; alleyne requires jury finding of any fact increasing mandatory minimum; Commonwealth concedes some provisions unconstitutional but seeks severability; trial court ruled §6317 unconstitutional in full; statute originally imposed a two-year minimum for deliveries within 1,000 feet of a school; the record involved multiple drug offenses including a school-zone sale; court must determine severability under 1 Pa.C.S. § 1925; majority holds non-severable due to Alleyne transforming the provision into an element of a new aggravated offense; dissent argues severability is possible and the remaining provisions can effectuate legislative intent; outcome affirms trial court’s ruling that §6317 is unconstitutional in its current form.
- The incidents giving rise to charges occurred in April 2012 in Chester County; Appellee Kyle Hopkins faced charges including multiple counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver and related offenses; the Commonwealth anticipated seeking a mandatory minimum under §6317 and the trial court granted extraordinary relief striking §6317 in its entirety.
- Statutory text of §6317 (a)–(d) sets a two-year minimum within school zones, with a maximum of four years, and requires a sentencing-determined application without pre-conviction notice; §6317(b) states the section’s applicability is determined at sentencing with preponderance of the evidence; §6317(d) provides Commonwealth appellate review if the section is violated; the General Assembly expressed severability in §1925.
- The majority concludes Alleyne renders §6317 unconstitutional in substantial part, rejects severability as to preserving the statute, and holds the valid portions cannot stand without rewriting the statute to a substantive offense; the dissent would sever only the unconstitutional provisions and allow the remaining framework to operate (with jury-based fact-finding) to achieve the legislative goal.
- Overall, the Court affirming the Chester County trial court, with Justices Saylor and Baer joining the majority; Eakin and Stevens dissenters disagree on severability and constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Alleyne destroys §6317 as a whole | Hopkins argues Alleyne makes proximity/age findings elements requiring jury verdict | Commonwealth contends severability preserves viable provisions | No; §6317 not severable; remaining provisions cannot operate independently |
| whether §1925 severability doctrine permits partial saving | The remaining provisions align with legislative intent and drug-free zones still serve goals | Majority says remaining provisions are incomplete without void ones | No; severability fails; Court cannot rewrite statute to create a new offense |
| whether special verdicts could cure Alleyne defects | Special verdicts would align with jury determination and notice requirements | Special verdicts are disfavored and do not cure notice/appeal defects | No; special verdicts cannot cure the constitutional flaws or notice provisions |
| whether severability should be accepted to preserve prox/age provisions | Dissent argues severability would allow remaining valid provisions to effectuate intent | Majority asserts proximity/age provisions themselves are void or dependent | No; severability fails; the statute cannot function as enacted under Alleyne |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (distinguishes between elements and sentencing factors for mandatory minimums)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing the statutory maximum is an element requiring jury trial)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (fact increasing mandatory minimum treated as sentencing factor pre-Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory minimum facts are elements requiring jury verdict beyond a reasonable doubt; transforms core offense and triggering fact into a new aggravated offense)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury-trial requirement for elements of the crime; jury must determine those facts)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 961 A.2d 57 (2008) (disfavor of special verdicts in pre-Alleyne severability context)