Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.
140 A.3d 651
| Pa. | 2016Background
- In 2012 an 18‑year‑old (Appellee) was convicted of multiple sexual offenses including two counts of IDSI (18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7)) for sexual intercourse with a victim under 16; the jury found the victim’s age beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Pennsylvania's mandatory‑minimum statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(a)(1) prescribes a 10‑year mandatory minimum when the victim is under 16, but § 9718(c) states applicability "shall not be an element of the crime" and directs judges to determine applicability at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence.
- After Alleyne v. United States (2013) (extending Apprendi to mandatory minimums), Pennsylvania courts invalidated several sentencing statutes that assigned mandatory‑minimum‑triggering fact‑finding to judges at sentencing.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the 10‑year mandatory minimums (to run concurrently); Appellee did not raise an Alleyne challenge on direct appeal.
- The Superior Court invoked Alleyne sua sponte, held § 9718 facially unconstitutional under Hopkins, vacated the sentences, and remanded for resentencing; the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, reaffirming Hopkins: § 9718 is non‑severable, facially unconstitutional under Alleyne, and sentences imposed under it are void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wolfe / amici) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May an appellate court raise an Alleyne/Apprendi‑type claim sua sponte (waiver/legality)? | The Commonwealth argued the Superior Court improperly proceeded sua sponte and that ordinary waiver rules apply. | Wolfe contended Alleyne challenges implicate sentence legality and are non‑waivable; amici urged courts may correct illegal sentences sua sponte. | Court deferred full waiver resolution to Barnes but recognized precedent allowing sua sponte correction of illegal sentences; treated Alleyne claims as implicating legality for present purposes. |
| 2. Does Alleyne render § 9718 unconstitutional as applied/ facially? | Commonwealth: § 9718(a) plus the fact that age is an element of IDSI here means no Alleyne violation; any defective procedural text in § 9718(c) can be ignored or severed. | Wolfe and amici: § 9718 requires judicial fact‑finding and disclaims element status; under Alleyne and Hopkins that makes the statute non‑severable and void. | Court reaffirmed Hopkins: § 9718 is irremediably unconstitutional on its face because it mandates non‑element status and judicial fact‑finding for a mandatory minimum. |
| 3. Is the error harmless where the jury already found the triggering fact beyond a reasonable doubt? | Commonwealth and PDAA: Alleyne/Apprendi errors can be harmless (Cotton, Neder); here no judicial factfinding occurred apart from the jury’s finding, so any error is harmless. | Wolfe and Defender Ass’n: harmless‑error review cannot revive a statute found facially unconstitutional and non‑severable; an unconstitutional statute is void. | Court rejected harmless‑error rescue for a statute that is facially invalid and non‑severable under Hopkins; could not reinstate mandatory minimums where statute is void. |
| 4. Remedy: severance or vacatur/resentencing? | Commonwealth urged severance or allow applying § 9718 where elements satisfied. | Wolfe argued non‑severability (per Hopkins) requires striking § 9718 and resentencing without mandatory minimum. | Court held severance inappropriate; affirmed Superior Court’s vacatur and remand for resentencing because § 9718 is void. |
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 and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase statutory maximum must be treated as elements for jury determination)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 632 Pa. 36, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (Pennsylvania holds mandatory‑minimum provisions that assign judicial factfinding and disavow element status are non‑severable and void under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 17 A.3d 332 (2011) (addresses whether certain mandatory‑minimum challenges implicate sentence legality and may be raised despite waiver)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (Apprendi‑line errors may, in some contexts, be subject to harmless‑error review)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (refused judicial severance and emphasized legislature must address Alleyne remedial scheme)