Commonwealth v. Ramos
623 Pa. 420
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Police executed a search at Ramos’s residence and found multiple firearms, packaging materials, and about 28.8 grams of marijuana; Ramos admitted responsibility.
- Ramos pleaded guilty to Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance and Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID) under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
- Commonwealth gave notice it would seek the five-year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 for PWID committed while in possession or control of a firearm.
- Trial court initially imposed concurrent terms and then amended to a flat five‑year sentence on the PWID count, deeming it mandatory under § 9712.1.
- Ramos appealed, arguing the flat five‑year mandatory minimum conflicts with Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme (42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)) because the substantive statute’s maximum for PWID is five years (35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(2)).
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding the specific, later-enacted § 9712.1 controls and a flat five‑year sentence is permissible despite § 9756(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a five‑year mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 can produce a flat five‑year term when the substantive statute’s maximum is also five years and § 9756(b) requires a minimum not exceeding half the maximum | Ramos: § 9712.1 produces an impermissible conflict with the indeterminate‑sentence rule (§ 9756(b)); absent explicit "notwithstanding" language, the minimum‑maximum rule should control | Commonwealth: § 9712.1 is a specific, later‑enacted statute that prevails over the general § 9756(b); § 780‑113(f)(2) and § 9712.1 can be read together to permit a flat five‑year sentence | Court: Affirmed — as the specific and later statute, § 9712.1 controls under 1 Pa.C.S. § 1933; a flat five‑year sentence is permissible (gives effect to § 9712.1 and § 780‑113(f)(2) despite inconsistency with § 9756(b)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994) (upheld flat mandatory minimum when read with Drug Act maximum; "notwithstanding" language permitted exception to § 9756)
- Commonwealth v. Zortman, 23 A.3d 519 (Pa. 2011) (statutory‑construction principles and legislative intent regarding § 9712.1)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 942 A.2d 174 (Pa. 2007) (discusses Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme and Apprendi implications)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (holding a fact that increases a mandatory minimum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)