Commonwealth v. Fennell
105 A.3d 13
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Caseen Fennell was convicted at a bench trial of possession with intent to deliver and possession of heroin; counts merged for sentencing.
- Trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment, including a 3-year mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(7)(i) based on heroin weight.
- Appellant had stipulated to certain lab reports showing one packet weighed 37 mg and packaging consistent across 55 packets; the court inferred an aggregate weight of 2.035 grams.
- Alleyne v. United States requires any fact that increases a mandatory minimum to be found by the factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions (notably Newman and Valentine) held that mandatory-minimum statutes that authorize judicial factfinding by a preponderance are unconstitutional and, in at least some statutes, nonseverable — so the entire statutory scheme must be struck or left to the legislature to fix.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court erred in applying § 7508’s mandatory minimum (the court treated subsection (b) as severable and relied on the stipulation), vacated the 3–6 year sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7508’s mandatory-minimum scheme is unconstitutional under Alleyne and nonseverable | § 7508 is facially unconstitutional and its subsections are nonseverable, so mandatory minimum cannot be applied | § 7508 error was harmless because Fennell stipulated to drug weight, so mandatory minimum properly applied | The court held § 7508 mandatory-minimum application was erroneous under Newman/Valentine; mandatory minimum vacated and remanded for resentencing without it |
| Whether a defendant’s stipulation to drug weight cures Alleyne error | Stipulation cannot cure constitutional defect where statute permits judicial factfinding outside jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt | Stipulation makes any Alleyne error harmless | Court treated stipulation as insufficient given Newman/Valentine; trial court’s reliance on severability was incorrect |
| Whether courts may create procedure (e.g., jury questions or accept stipulations) to satisfy Alleyne absent legislative action | Legislative creation of new procedures is required; court cannot unilaterally craft enforcement mechanism | If fact is established (stipulation/jury question), harmless error or cure applies | Court followed Newman: courts cannot legislate new procedures; remedy is remand without mandatory minimum unless legislature acts |
| Remedy when mandatory-minimum statute authorizes judicial factfinding | Strike/enjoin application; remand for resentencing without mandatory minimum | Remand for new sentencing jury or permit jury to find element to salvage statute | Court declined to empanel sentencing jury or accept informal cures; vacated mandatory minimum and remanded for resentencing without it |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by factfinder beyond reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (elements increasing punishment must be submitted to jury)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (mandatory-minimum statutory subsections allowing judicial factfinding are unconstitutional and nonseverable; courts cannot create enforcement mechanisms)
- Commonwealth v. Hanson, 82 A.3d 1023 (Pa. 2013) (interpretation of "in close proximity" in mandatory-minimum context)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014) (application of § 7508 subsection held unconstitutional as applied under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 95 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. 2014) (no statutory authorization renders a sentence illegal and subject to correction)
- Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Alleyne issues implicate legality of sentence and are reviewable)
- Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for legality-of-sentence questions)
- Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural jurisdictional principles)