Commonwealth v. Blakney
152 A.3d 1053
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Darryl Blakney pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender (case CP-02-CR-0002393) and was sentenced to a mandatory 5–10 year term under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4(a)(2)(i) as a second offense.
- Appellant had a prior rape conviction (California, 1995) and was a Tier III lifetime registrant; records showed he last registered in September 2013 and had absconded.
- Appellant failed to file a direct appeal but successfully petitioned under the PCRA for reinstatement of post-sentence and direct-appeal rights; he then appealed nunc pro tunc.
- The constitutional challenge: § 9718.4 imposes a mandatory minimum based on a fact (registration period length) determined at sentencing under a “proof at sentencing” scheme, rather than as an element found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Commonwealth conceded that recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions (Hopkins, Wolfe) required treating § 9718.4 as unconstitutional.
- The Superior Court vacated the mandatory sentence in case 2393 and remanded for resentencing without applying § 9718.4; two other judgments of sentence in separate cases were affirmed (no challenge raised).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4 is unconstitutional under Alleyne because it allows judge-found facts at sentencing to trigger a mandatory minimum | Blakney: § 9718.4 violates Alleyne because the statute treats the triggering fact (registration period) as non-element to be proved at sentencing by a preponderance | Commonwealth: conceded Wolfe/Hopkins control and thus § 9718.4 is unconstitutional (earlier cases maintained mechanical facts may be objective) | Court: § 9718.4 is facially unconstitutional and non-severable because its ‘proof at sentencing’ provision conflicts with Alleyne; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing without § 9718.4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing mandatory penalty must be treated as an element and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015) (struck down mandatory-minimum statute containing judge-found ‘proof at sentencing’ language; held such provisions non-severable)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (held 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 unconstitutional on its face because judicial fact-finding at sentencing violated Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (held ‘proof at sentencing’ provisions unconstitutional under Alleyne and not severable)
- Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 145 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2016) (per curiam order) (vacated Superior Court decision and remanded for resentencing without applying § 9718.4, citing Hopkins and Wolfe)