Commonwealth v. Motley
177 A.3d 960
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Antoine Motley was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery (threatening immediate serious bodily injury), carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an instrument of crime arising from an armed robbery of two USPS employees.
- At sentencing (June 19, 2012) the trial court imposed consecutive terms of 7½ to 15 years’ imprisonment for each robbery count (aggregate 15–30 years), plus consecutive five-year probation terms for the PIC and firearm offenses (aggregate 10 years’ probation).
- The Commonwealth had filed a pre-sentence notice seeking application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (10-year mandatory minimum for second or subsequent convictions) and introduced documentation of Motley’s prior robbery convictions at sentencing.
- A court commitment form (DC-300B) accompanying the written order erroneously had the “Mandatory Sentence” box checked, but the signed written sentencing order recited 7½–15 year terms (no 10-year mandatory minimums).
- Motley (after PCRA restoration of direct appeal rights) argued his sentence was illegal under Alleyne; the Commonwealth argued the sentence was illegal because the court failed to apply § 9714 when it was triggered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Motley) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Motley received unconstitutional mandatory-minimum sentences under Alleyne | Motley: DC-300B shows mandatory minimums were applied; under Alleyne any facts raising mandatory minima must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: The signed sentencing order controls; DC-300B is an administrative commitment form and not the sentencing order | Held: No — the written sentencing order imposed 7½–15 years; DC-300B is not the court’s sentence, so Alleyne does not apply here |
| Whether § 9714 (mandatory 10-year minima for second/subsequent offenses) is unconstitutional under Alleyne | Motley: broadly argued Alleyne renders mandatory minimums unconstitutional | Commonwealth: § 9714 is predicated on prior convictions and is excepted from Alleyne’s rule | Held: § 9714 is not unconstitutional under Alleyne when based on prior convictions |
| Whether the sentences are illegal because the court failed to apply § 9714 when applicable | Motley: did not press this; primary attack was Alleyne | Commonwealth: Court was required to determine applicability of § 9714 at sentencing and, having failed to apply it despite notice and proof of priors, the imposed robbery sentences are illegal | Held: Court agrees with Commonwealth — trial court’s failure to apply § 9714 (if applicable) rendered the robbery sentences illegal; judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219 (Pa. 2013) (the signed sentencing order controls and reflects the court’s sentencing intentions)
- Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (§ 9714 mandatory minima based on prior convictions are not unconstitutional under Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (challenges to mandatory minimum sentences that affect sentencing authority may be raised as legality-of-sentence issues and are nonwaivable)
- Commonwealth v. Randal, 837 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2003) (an illegal sentence—i.e., lacking statutory authorization—must be vacated)