Commonwealth v. Cardwell
105 A.3d 748
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Jamar Cardwell was convicted after a bench trial of PWID and possession of a controlled substance based on possession of PCP totaling 6.148 grams.
- Trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 3–6 years on each count, including a 3-year mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(i) based on drug weight.
- Appellant timely challenged the mandatory minimum under Alleyne v. United States and sought relief on appeal.
- The trial court had accepted a defense/Commonwealth stipulation at trial as to the total PCP weight.
- The Superior Court considered its recent precedents (notably Newman and Valentine) addressing Alleyne’s effect on Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum statutes and whether statutory subsections permitting judicial factfinding are severable.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of § 7508’s mandatory minimum (weight-based) violates Alleyne because the aggravating fact must be found beyond a reasonable doubt | § 7508 is facially unconstitutional under Alleyne; facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements that must be found beyond a reasonable doubt | Alleyne error is harmless because Appellant stipulated to the drug weight at trial | Court held the mandatory minimum could not be imposed under the existing statutory scheme; Alleyne requires the aggravating fact be found by the factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt and the trial court erred in imposing the mandatory minimum |
| Whether the weight-stipulation (or submitting facts to a jury) cures Alleyne error or whether § 7508’s subsections are non-severable making the statute unenforceable absent legislative change | Stipulation should permit application of the mandatory minimum | Stipulation makes any Alleyne error harmless; enforcing § 7508 is appropriate here | Court followed Newman/Valentine: procedures created by courts (stipulations or jury questions) cannot salvage mandatory-minimum statutes whose enforcement provisions are unconstitutional; subsections are not severable here for purposes of imposing the mandatory minimum, so sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing without the mandatory minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements that must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (other decisions establishing that any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Pennsylvania Superior Court held similar mandatory-minimum scheme unconstitutional in light of Alleyne and rejected court-created procedures to salvage enforcement)
- Commonwealth v. Hanson, 82 A.3d 1023 (Pa. 2013) (discussion of imprecision in statutory phrase “in close proximity,” relevant to application of mandatory-minimum predicates)