Commonwealth v. Mazzetti
44 A.3d 58
Pa.2012Background
- Mazzetti pled guilty to PWID under a negotiated plea; the Commonwealth waived the school-zone two-year mandatory minimum at initial sentencing.
- Initial sentence: 12 months of probation.
- Probation violation occurred when Mazzetti committed retail theft (summary offense).
- Commonwealth sought, and the trial court allowed, re-imposition of the school-zone mandatory minimum at resentencing; the court declined.
- Superior Court affirmed, adopting a Kunkle-based framework but concluding the Commonwealth could not seek the minimum after waiver.
- This Court granted review to decide if waiver at initial sentencing precludes later seeking the minimum following probation revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Commonwealth seek the school-zone minimum at resentencing after probation revocation when it waived it at initial sentencing? | Mazzetti argues waiver eliminates option at resentencing. | Mazzetti argues no option exists after waiver; resentencing must follow initial alternatives. | Commonwealth cannot seek the minimum at resentencing; waiver at initial sentencing stands. |
| Do statutes 6317, 9721, 9771(b) require consistency of sentencing options at resentencing after probation revocation? | Commonwealth asserts reimposition is authorized if options exist at initial sentencing. | Court should adhere to original alternatives; no separate resentencing trigger for 6317. | Statutory framework precludes applying 6317 at resentencing when it was not available initially. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kunkle, 817 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requires evidence at initial sentencing for 6317 application)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 870 A.2d 838 (Pa. 2005) (resentencing discretion after revocation; availability of alternatives)
- Commonwealth v. Infante, 888 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2005) (permits mandatory minimum upon revocation after negotiated plea)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2009) (relevance to 6317 applicability; cited as non-directly controlling)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 934 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007) (remand evidentiary considerations; not directly on revocation)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) (Double Jeopardy; retrial in noncapital sentencing context)
- Fonner v. Shandon, Inc., 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) (statutory interpretation; omission signals intent)