Commonwealth v. Valentine
101 A.3d 801
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- March 2012 robbery: Victim Renee Gibbs was approached at a Chester SEPTA stop, had a handgun pointed at her, was threatened, and surrendered her purse and phone; assailant wore a partial mask and dark clothing.
- Appellant Jose Valentine was arrested within 20 minutes nearby; Gibbs identified him at the scene, at preliminary hearing, and at trial; her purse was found in a dumpster near Appellant’s residence.
- Commonwealth charged Valentine with robbery and related offenses; Commonwealth orally amended the information to invoke mandatory-minimum provisions 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9712 and 9713 (visible firearm; crime in/near public transportation).
- Jury convicted Valentine of robbery and answered “yes” on verdict questions whether he visibly possessed a firearm and whether the robbery occurred at/near a SEPTA bus stop.
- Trial court applied mandatory five-year minimums under §§ 9712 and 9713 at sentencing; Valentine appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence and illegality of mandatory minimums post-Alleyne.
- Superior Court affirmed conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without consideration of §§ 9712 and 9713 mandatory minimums, holding those statutes unconstitutional in light of Alleyne and Newman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Valentine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification/evidence for robbery | Evidence (victim ID at scene, trial, prelim; purse located near appellant; Facebook contact) suffices to prove identity and robbery elements | Evidence was insufficient to identify Valentine beyond a reasonable doubt and to show he threatened or put victim in fear of serious bodily injury | Court held evidence sufficient to support robbery conviction (identity and fear of serious bodily injury proven) |
| Legality of mandatory minimums under §§ 9712 & 9713 post-Alleyne | Trial court submitted firearm and public-transportation predicates to jury on verdict slip; Commonwealth implicitly contends jury finding cures constitutional defect | Valentine argues Alleyne renders §§ 9712(c) and 9713(c) unconstitutional; those provisions are inseparable from subsections (a) so the statutes are invalid in whole; trial court could not rewrite statutes by having the jury decide predicates | Court held §§ 9712 and 9713 unconstitutional as enacted (applying Newman en banc); vacated sentence and remanded for re-sentencing without those mandatory minimums |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Pennsylvania mandatory-minimum subsections that delegate predicate-finding to judge are inseparable from predicate and statute must be vacated absent legislative remedy)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (legality-of-sentence claims implicating Alleyne are non-waivable; Alleyne renders judge-found mandatory-minimum statutes infirm)
- Commonwealth v. Matteson, 96 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. 2014) (upholding mandatory sentence only where jury already found predicates beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2011) (identification need not be perfect; circumstantial details can sustain identity finding)
- Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. 1998) (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
- Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2012) (threat need not be verbal; aggressive actions can satisfy robbery element of placing victim in fear of serious bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2009) (objective standard for fear of serious bodily injury; jury may infer fear from nature of threat)