Commonwealth v. Bizzel
107 A.3d 102
Pa.2014Background
- Appellant Jermal Bizzel was observed selling four Xanax pills in South Philadelphia, convicted at bench trial of PWID, possession, and conspiracy; trial court imposed a mandatory 2–4 year minimum on the PWID count under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 (drug‑free school zone) after finding by a preponderance that the sale occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.
- Appellant preserved a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum at sentencing and on post‑sentence motion, relying on Alleyne v. United States.
- Alleyne (decided after Bizzel’s sentencing) holds that any fact that increases a mandatory minimum is an element of the offense and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Commonwealth conceded that § 6317(b) (which treats the school‑zone fact as not an element and assigns a preponderance standard at sentencing) conflicts with Alleyne.
- The Superior Court analyzed severability under 1 Pa.C.S. § 1925 and concluded § 6317(b) is inseparably connected to § 6317(a) (the substantive mandatory minimum), leaving no workable enforcement mechanism if § 6317(b) is excised.
- Result: convictions affirmed, but judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing because § 6317 is unconstitutional in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bizzel) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6317(b) (preponderance-at-sentencing) is unconstitutional under Alleyne | § 6317(b) violates Alleyne because the school‑zone fact increases mandatory minimums and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Argued enforcement can proceed or facts can be proved to jury/plea‑admitted to satisfy Alleyne | Court: § 6317(b) is unconstitutional under Alleyne |
| Whether § 6317(b) can be severed from § 6317 so remainder remains enforceable | Severability cannot save § 6317 because § 6317(b) is the enforcement mechanism; without it there is no procedure to determine applicability | Commonwealth: legislature’s intent supports preserving the mandatory minimum and courts or juries can supply the required procedure | Court: § 6317(b) is inseparable from § 6317; whole statute invalidated |
| Remedy for Alleyne error in this case (vacatur vs. harmless error) | Bizzel sought vacatur of sentence because the statutory procedure led to unconstitutional judicial factfinding | Commonwealth suggested harmless‑error or that jury could have found the fact beyond a reasonable doubt in some cases | Court: vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing due to statute’s unconstitutionality |
| Retroactivity/preservation of Alleyne claim | Bizzel preserved the Alleyne challenge before decision issued; thus claim properly preserved for appeal | Commonwealth noted timing but did not prevail on preservation grounds | Court: issue preserved and considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Booker v. United States, 548 U.S. 220 (2005) (remedial severability analysis and sentencing‑factor jurisprudence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact other than a prior conviction that increases penalty must be submitted to jury)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (mandatory‑minimum burden‑of‑proof provision inseparable from substantive provision)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (application of Alleyne where jury had found facts necessary for mandatory minimum)
- Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (bench trials are subject to Alleyne rule requiring beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Matteson, 96 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jury verdict included facts needed to impose mandatory minimum)