Commonwealth v. Ciccone
152 A.3d 1004
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Sean Ciccone pleaded guilty in 2011 to two counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), conspiracy to commit PWID, and possession of drug paraphernalia after police found ~50 marijuana plants (~13 lbs), growing equipment, and firearms in his home.
- The plea was negotiated to account for mandatory-minimum exposure; court imposed 3.5 to 5 years' incarceration, later amended to make him RRRI-eligible (parole after 35 months).
- Ciccone filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (April 2012); counsel was appointed and evidentiary hearings were held in 2013–2014. He preserved two ineffective-assistance claims and later amended to assert an Alleyne-based illegality-of-sentence claim.
- The PCRA court treated the claim as invoking Alleyne (applying Apprendi to mandatory minimums) and denied relief on the ground Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review.
- This Court initially granted en banc relief but withdrew that decision after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Washington holding Alleyne is not retroactive to collateral attacks; the panel now affirms denial of PCRA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne renders Ciccone's mandatory-minimum sentence illegal and thus cognizable on PCRA collateral review | Alleyne requires that facts increasing a mandatory minimum be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, so Ciccone's sentence (based on drug weight/plant count) is illegal | Alleyne does not apply retroactively on collateral review; at the time of sentencing the statute was valid under prior precedent (McMillan/Harris) | Denied — Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review per Commonwealth v. Washington, so sentence is not illegal on PCRA review |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (establishes that any fact that increases the maximum penalty must be charged, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (upheld mandatory-minimum scheme where sentencing court, by preponderance, found facts triggering minimum)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (reaffirmed McMillan pre-Alleyne regarding mandatory minima and sentencing-court factfinding)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (held facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements that must be submitted to a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) (Alleyne does not apply retroactively to collateral PCRA attacks)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (applied Alleyne principles to invalidate certain mandatory-minimum sentencing provisions on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa.Super. 2015) (struck down 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 mandatory minimum on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (invalidated mandatory-minimum provision as violative of Alleyne)