Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A.
179 A.3d 18
Pa.2018Background
- Appellee (Resto) was convicted by a jury of, among other offenses, rape of a child (18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c)). At sentencing the trial court applied the mandatory minimum in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(a)(3) (ten years).
- Appellee challenged the mandatory minimum under Alleyne v. United States (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt). The Commonwealth argued § 9718(a)(3) requires no additional factfinding beyond conviction, so Alleyne does not apply.
- The Superior Court affirmed, treating § 9718 as a unit and relying on a line of cases invalidating mandatory-minimum provisions that require judicial factfinding. This Court granted review to resolve whether § 9718(a)(3) is unconstitutional under Alleyne.
- § 9718(a)(1) and (a)(2) tie mandatory minima to victim age and have been held unconstitutional (Wolfe) because § 9718(c) required sentencing judges to find aggravating facts by a preponderance at sentencing. § 9718(a)(3) imposes mandatory minima upon conviction without referencing additional predicate facts.
- The lead opinion (Chief Justice Saylor) held § 9718(a)(3) does not implicate Alleyne because it requires no judicial factfinding beyond the jury conviction; it also concluded that the unconstitutional subsections (a)(1)/(a)(2) are severable from (a)(3). The Superior Court order was reversed and sentence reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9718(a)(3)’s mandatory minimum violates Alleyne by permitting judicial factfinding that increases a sentence | Resto: mandatory-minimum attachment to a conviction operates like an aggravating fact; Alleyne concerns apply | Commonwealth: § 9718(a)(3) requires no additional factfinding—mandatory minimum attaches on conviction (a jury finding) | Held: No Alleyne violation—§ 9718(a)(3) requires no extra sentencing factfinding and is constitutional as written |
| Whether the unconstitutional parts of § 9718 (a)(1)/(a)(2) render the whole statute void (severability) | Resto: prior precedent (Wolfe) declared § 9718 non-severable and void; thus (a)(3) invalid | Commonwealth: Subsections prescribe independent arrays of penalties; severability presumption applies under 1 Pa.C.S. §1925 | Held: (a)(1)/(a)(2) are severable; (a)(3) and remaining provisions remain valid |
| Whether Wolfe controls and compels invalidation of § 9718(a)(3) despite textual differences | Resto: Wolfe said § 9718 is irremediably unconstitutional on its face | Commonwealth: Wolfe addressed different operative facts (age-trigger subsections); holdings should be read against the facts | Held: Wolfe’s broad language is overbroad as applied to (a)(3); Wolfe does not control to invalidate (a)(3) |
| Whether the presence of § 9718(c) (proof at sentencing) makes (a)(3) unconstitutional | Resto: § 9718(c) mandates judicial determinations at sentencing, infecting the statute | Commonwealth: § 9718(c) is superfluous relative to (a)(3) because no facts must be proved at sentencing under (a)(3) | Held: § 9718(c) is awkward but does not implicate Alleyne for (a)(3); it does not render (a)(3) unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Wolfe v. Commonwealth, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (majority held § 9718 unconstitutional as applied to victim-age-triggered minima and described § 9718 broadly as non-severable and void)
- Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (applied severability analysis to mandatory-minimum sentencing statute and invalidated portions requiring judicial factfinding)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum is an element for jury determination)