Commonwealth v. Wolfe
106 A.3d 800
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Matthew Bryan Wolfe was convicted by jury of two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and multiple related sex offenses involving a complainant under 16; other counts were acquitted or dismissed.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed two 10-year mandatory minimums under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(a)(1) (IDSI with victim <16), producing an aggregate 10–20 year term.
- Appellant appealed raising constitutional challenges to § 9718 (equal protection, due process, Eighth Amendment); the panel instead reviewed the sentence’s legality sua sponte.
- The court analyzed Alleyne/Apprendi principles requiring facts that increase mandatory minima be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and Pennsylvania precedent addressing mandatory-minimum statutes with post-conviction judicial factfinding.
- The Court concluded § 9718 shares the same structure as other mandatory-minimum statutes held facially invalid in Newman and Valentine (predicate in one subsection; sentencing/burden provision in another) and was therefore facially void and non-severable.
- Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing without the § 9718 mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wolfe) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9718 mandatory minimum violates constitutional protections | § 9718 imposes disproportionate sentences and violates equal protection, due process, and Eighth Amendment | (Answer not reached on merits) court found a separate basis to vacate sentence | Court did not decide constitutional merits; found sentence illegal on other grounds |
| Whether Alleyne requires jury finding beyond reasonable doubt for facts triggering § 9718 mandatory minimum | Mandatory-minimum facts must be jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt | Commonwealth relied on statute’s sentencing subsection allowing judicial factfinding by preponderance | Court held Alleyne controls such statutes and § 9718’s structure renders it facially invalid per Newman/Valentine |
| Whether the fact triggering the mandatory minimum (victim under a certain age) being an element of the offense cures Alleyne defect | Wolfe argued the statute still improperly authorized judicial factfinding at sentencing | Commonwealth pointed to cases (e.g., Matteson/Watley) where jury conviction of an offense including the age element satisfied Alleyne | Court held Newman controls: § 9718 is non-severable and void as a whole even where the age was an element; mandatory minimum could not be applied |
| Remedy when mandatory-minimum statute is unconstitutional under Alleyne | Wolfe sought relief from the mandatory minimum | Commonwealth suggested remand for jury to find the facts at sentencing or uphold sentence where jury already found the element | Court vacated the mandatory minimum application and remanded for resentencing without § 9718 mandatory minimum; declined to create a jury-sentencing mechanism (legislative province) |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (established rule that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (prior case overruled by Alleyne regarding judicial factfinding for mandatory minima)
- Newman v. Commonwealth, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. Ct. en banc) (held similar mandatory-minimum statute non-severable and unconstitutional post-Alleyne)
- Valentine v. Commonwealth, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (vacated sentence where trial court asked jury to find mandatory-minimum facts; followed Newman)
- Matteson v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (upheld mandatory minimum where the jury had convicted on an offense that included the age element)
- Watley v. Commonwealth, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. Ct. en banc) (discussed interaction of jury findings and mandatory-minimum sentencing)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 102 A.3d 988 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (discussed Alleyne implications for mandatory-minimum statutes)