Commonwealth v. Newman
99 A.3d 86
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Police executed a warrant at appellant’s apartment and found >60 grams of cocaine in a bathroom and a handgun under a mattress in a bedroom across a hallway (~6–8 feet apart); appellant was convicted of PWID and related offenses.
- After conviction, the Commonwealth filed notice seeking imposition of the mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 (five-year floor if a firearm is in physical possession, control, or in close proximity to drugs).
- The trial court imposed the mandatory minimum at sentencing based on a preponderance finding that a firearm was in close proximity; Superior Court initially affirmed.
- While the appeal was pending (reargument granted), the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alleyne v. United States, holding that any fact that increases a mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Superior Court held Alleyne applies retroactively, concluded § 9712.1 is unconstitutional under Alleyne (because it makes the firearm condition a judge-found sentencing factor by preponderance), vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing without regard to § 9712.1 mandatory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Alleyne | Alleyne should apply because appellant’s case was pending on direct review when Alleyne issued | Alleyne applies retroactively (Commonwealth conceded) | Alleyne applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review; appellant preserved the sentencing-legality challenge such that retroactive relief is available |
| Constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 under Alleyne | § 9712.1 is unconstitutional because it lets judge determine firearm-related predicate by preponderance at sentencing, violating the Sixth Amendment/Jury Trial right per Alleyne | § 9712.1 survives because prior precedent (McMillan/Harris) allowed judge-found sentencing factors | Alleyne overruled Harris (and by implication McMillan); any fact that increases a mandatory minimum must be pleaded and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, so § 9712.1 is unconstitutional as written |
| Harmless error (whether judge’s finding could be deemed harmless) | N/A (appellant argued error required resentencing) | The error is harmless because evidence that the firearm was in close proximity or under constructive possession was overwhelming | Error was not harmless: factual meaning of “in close proximity” and constructive-control are not so clear or overwhelming that a jury would inevitably have found them beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Remedy / Severability (whether court should sever § 9712.1(c) and remand for jury) | Appellant sought vacatur and resentencing without § 9712.1 mandatory minimum | Commonwealth urged severance and remand to empanel a jury to find the element beyond a reasonable doubt | The court refused to rewrite the statute or craft a new enforcement mechanism; found subsections (a) and (c) inseparably connected and held the statute unconstitutional in its entirety; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing without § 9712.1 mandatory minimums |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing maximum sentence must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (permitted judge-found sentencing factors increasing minimums under certain circumstances)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (plurality upholding judge-found facts increasing mandatory minimums for federal statute; later overruled by Alleyne)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (constitutional error may be subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Watley v. Commonwealth, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (discussed Alleyne’s impact on Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Hanson, 82 A.3d 1023 (Pa. 2013) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court analyzing "in close proximity" and formulating "constructive control" concept for § 9712.1)