Commonwealth v. Barnes, K., Aplt.
151 A.3d 121
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Police executed a search of a residence and seized a firearm, drugs, and paraphernalia from a bedroom; Kareem Barnes (Appellant) was convicted at a bench trial of PWID and related offenses.
- Trial court imposed 6–10 years’ imprisonment on the PWID conviction, including a 5-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 based on a sentencing finding that drugs were in "close proximity" to a firearm.
- Appellant appealed raising only sufficiency claims; four days after his notice of appeal the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States. Appellant did not preserve an Alleyne challenge below.
- The Superior Court affirmed; it found no Alleyne violation based on its precedent. The Commonwealth later conceded that Pennsylvania precedent (Hopkins, Wolfe) rendered § 9712.1 unconstitutional under Alleyne.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review only on the Alleyne issue and addressed whether an Alleyne challenge is waivable when not raised below. The Court concluded the challenge implicates the legality of sentence and is not waivable.
- The Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without applying § 9712.1.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Alleyne challenge not raised below is waived | Alleyne challenge implicates illegality of sentence because the mandatory minimum left the court no authority to impose any other sentence; thus not waivable | The sentencing court had separate discretionary authority (sentencing range) that could have supported the same sentence, so the claim is waivable | Alleyne challenge implicates legality of sentence where mandatory-minimum authority was facially invalid and no separate mandatory authority existed; not waived |
| Whether § 9712.1 violates Alleyne | § 9712.1 makes a sentencing fact (proximity of firearm) an element determined at sentencing by preponderance, violating Alleyne | Initially defended under Superior Court precedent; ultimately conceded by Commonwealth after Hopkins/Wolfe | § 9712.1 is unconstitutional under Alleyne; statute cannot support mandatory minimum here |
| Remedy — what relief is required | Vacatur of judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing without § 9712.1 | Agreed relief appropriate given concession and precedent | Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing without applying § 9712.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be treated as elements proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania sentencing statute requiring mandatory minimum based on non-elemental facts found at sentencing violates Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (same principle invalidating mandatory-minimum provisions predicated on sentencing-found facts)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (held defendant entitled to relief when new rule rendered mandatory minimum invalid during pendency of direct appeal; discussed illegality doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d 95 (Pa. 2007) (invalidated application of mandatory minimum to a defendant who did not possess a firearm, shaping later issue-preservation and illegality analyses)