J-E01011-16
2016 PA Super 149
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
SEAN JOSEPH CICCONE
Appellant No. 3114 EDA 2014
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered October 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003231-2011
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, SHOGAN, LAZARUS, MUNDY, OLSON, OTT, AND STABILE, JJ.
DISSENTING OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 12, 2016
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Appellant’s
sentence is illegal under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013),
and cases applying that decision in Pennsylvania.
Police charged Appellant with three counts of possession with intent to
deliver (“PWID”), conspiracy to commit PWID, and possession of drug
paraphernalia, and Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea on September
2, 2011. The facts underlying the plea were as follows. Police executed a
search warrant at Appellant’s residence on July 6, 2010. On the upper floors
of the home, police saw a rifle, two shotguns, marijuana, and drug
paraphernalia. In the basement, police found over fifty live marijuana plants
weighing approximately thirteen pounds. J-E01011-16
Prior to sentencing, the Commonwealth notified Appellant that it would
seek a three-year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §
7508(a)(1)(ii), based on the weight of the marijuana and the number of
plants recovered. In accordance with the negotiated plea, on September 9,
2011, Appellant received a three and one-half to five year term of
imprisonment,1 with eligibility for the Risk Recidivism Reduction Incentive
program.
While Appellant did not file a direct appeal, he filed a timely pro se
PCRA. The PCRA court appointed counsel and held three evidentiary
hearings. Before the final hearing, counsel filed an amended PCRA petition
wherein Appellant averred that his sentence was illegal based on Alleyne.2
The PCRA court denied relief on October 7, 2014, concluding that Alleyne
could not be retroactively applied in this matter since Appellant’s judgment
____________________________________________
1 Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756, a defendant’s minimum sentence is ordinarily required to be no more than one-half the maximum sentence the court imposed. This precept, however, did not apply where mandatory minimum sentences were at issue. Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Hockenberry, 689 A.2d 283, 289 (Pa.Super. 1997). 2 Although Appellant did waive all but two PCRA claims, which solely involved plea counsel’s ineffectiveness, at the final PCRA hearing, his Alleyne challenge cannot be considered waived as it relates to the legality of Appellant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86, 90 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (“challenge to a sentence premised upon Alleyne . . . implicates the legality of the sentence,” and such a challenge cannot be waived).
-2- J-E01011-16
of sentence became final on October 9, 2011, before the Alleyne decision
was disseminated.
This timely appeal ensued. On appeal, Appellant raises the single
contention: “Did the lower court err in denying Appellant’s Post-Conviction
Relief Act petition, where Appellant challenged the legality of his sentence
pursuant to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), in a timely filed Post-Conviction
Relief Act petition?” Appellant’s brief at 4.
Before one can reach a reasoned examination of whether Alleyne
applies herein, it is necessary to examine the case upon which it is
premised, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi
involves the Sixth Amendment right to have an impartial jury determine
each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi fired bullets
into the home of an African-American family who recently moved into an all-
white enclave. He pled guilty in connection with that crime and other
shootings. When the plea was entered, the prosecutor reserved the right to
invoke a New Jersey hate crime statute while Apprendi retained the ability to
contest its application. Under that provision, the maximum sentence that
Apprendi could receive pursuant to the plea increased if a trial court found,
under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that the defendant
committed a crime to intimidate an individual or group based upon the
victim’s race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation, or
-3- J-E01011-16
ethnicity. A hearing was held on the applicability of the hate crime statute
to the shooting that involved the African-American family, and the parties
presented countervailing evidence regarding Apprendi’s motivation for the
crime. The trial court concluded that the offense was racially motivated and
sentenced the defendant to an enhanced term of imprisonment by applying
the hate crime law.
The Apprendi Court concluded that Apprendi had a Sixth Amendment
right, applicable to New Jersey by virtue of the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable
doubt whether the crime was racially motivated. It premised that holding on
the fact that the issue of the motivation for his crime increased the
maximum sentence that Apprendi faced under the hate crime law.
Apprendi’s specific and oft-repeated holding is, “[A]ny fact (other than
prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be
charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 476 (quoting Jones v. United States, 526 U.S.
227, 243, n. 6 (1999)).
It is of key importance in the present case to note that Apprendi’s
holding was, prior to Alleyne, never applicable to a fact that increased a
minimum sentence, including a fact that triggered a mandatory minimum
sentence. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in McMillan v.
Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986), involved Pennsylvania’s mandatory
-4- J-E01011-16
minimum sentencing statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712, which required imposition of
a mandatory minimum sentence of five years if a defendant committed
certain offenses while visibly possessing a firearm. Under § 9712, after a
defendant was adjudicated guilty of the underlying offense, the sentencing
court would determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the
defendant visibly possessed a firearm. If the defendant did, then the
mandatory minimum sentence of five years had to be imposed.
The defendants in McMillan maintained that having a sentencing court
decide the visible-possession issue offended their Sixth Amendment right to
a jury trial. Their position was that “visible possession of a firearm” was
actually an element of any of the crimes that invoked § 9712, and thus, had
to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The
United States Supreme Court rejected that argument. The McMillan Court
upheld the constitutionality of § 9712 because it did not increase the
statutory maximum penalty for any offense committed, failed to create a
separate crime calling for an additional penalty, and was inapplicable until a
defendant was convicted of the particular crime for which he was to be
sentenced.
Apprendi was filed subsequent to McMillan. Thereafter, in Harris v.
United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), the nation’s High Court re-visited
McMillan and its viability under Apprendi. The statute at issue in Harris
provided for an increase in the minimum sentence if a sentencing court
-5- J-E01011-16
determined that the defendant brandished a firearm during the commission
of the underlying crime. The Harris Court rejected a challenge to the
holding of McMillan based on the Apprendi decision. Under Harris,
mandatory minimum sentences that were imposed within the maximum
ceiling set by a jury verdict did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment
right to a jury trial.
Alleyne applied the holding of Apprendi in the mandatory minimum
sentencing context. Alleyne and his accomplices committed an armed
robbery of a store manager who was driving the business’s deposits to a
bank, and he was charged with various federal offenses. An applicable
federal law provided for an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence by
two years if a firearm was brandished during the crime. The jury did not
indicate on its verdict slip that the gun in question was visible, but the
sentencing court applied the enhanced sentence of two years. Alleyne
objected and maintained that raising his mandatory minimum sentence
based on the sentencing court’s finding that he displayed the firearm
violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The trial court, applying
Harris, dismissed Alleyne’s complaint. After the federal appeals court
affirmed, the United States Supreme Court reversed and overruled Harris.
The Alleyne Court observed that Harris distinguished between facts
that increased a statutory maximum and those that increased a mandatory
minimum sentence. It concluded that this differentiation was incompatible
-6- J-E01011-16
with the rationale of Apprendi since mandatory minimum sentences pertain
to the permissible ranges of penalties that can be imposed upon a conviction
for a crime. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that since
“[m]andatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime,” it
“follows, then, that any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an
‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury.” Alleyne, supra at 2155. The
Court continued that
Apprendi's definition of ‘elements’ necessarily includes not only facts that increase the ceiling, but also those that increase the floor. Both kinds of facts alter the prescribed range of sentences to which a defendant is exposed and do so in a manner that aggravates the punishment. . . . Facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence are therefore elements and must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 2158. Thus, Alleyne, as did Apprendi, reallocated from the
sentencing court to the jury the task of determining the existence of any fact
that triggers application of a mandatory minimum sentence, and both cases
altered the burden of proof to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Pursuant to Alleyne, a host of Pennsylvania mandatory minimum
statutes, including the one applied herein, have been ruled unconstitutional
in their entirety if the statute in question assigned the task of determining
application of the mandatory minimum to a sentencing court under a
preponderance-of-the-evidence rubric. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 117
A.3d 247 (Pa. 2015); Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa.Super.
2014) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super.
-7- J-E01011-16
2014) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa.Super.
2014); Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa.Super. 2014);
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa.Super. 2014). All of these
cases striking imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under a statute
rendered infirm by Alleyne were pending on direct appeal when Alleyne
was disseminated. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004)
(“When a decision of this Court results in a ‘new rule,’ that rule applies to all
criminal cases still pending on direct review.”).
This Court is tasked with deciding whether Alleyne, and,
concomitantly, the cases issued pursuant to that decision, should be applied
retroactively in the post-conviction setting to a sentence that was legally
final before Alleyne was decided. In my view, the retroactivity test that is
applied by the United States Supreme Court and our Supreme Court compels
a negative answer to that inquiry.
I begin with the applicable federal standard. “The normal framework
for determining whether a new rule applies to cases on collateral review
stems from the plurality opinion in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109
S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).” Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1257, 1264 (2016).3 Pursuant to Teague, the general rule is that “new
3 Welch examined the retroactivity of the holding of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), wherein the United States Supreme Court (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8- J-E01011-16
constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those
cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” Id.
(emphasis added) (quoting Teague, supra at 310). There are “two
categories of decisions that fall outside this general bar[.]” Welch, supra at
1264. First, “new substantive rules generally apply retroactively.” Id.
(emphasis in original) (quoting Schriro, supra at 351). “Second, new
watershed rules of criminal procedure, which are procedural rules implicating
the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding, will also
have retroactive effect.” Welch, supra at 1264 (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
“A rule is substantive rather than procedural if it alters the range of conduct or the class of persons that the law punishes.” Schriro, 542 U.S., at 353, 124 S.Ct. 2519. “This includes decisions that narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms, as well as constitutional determinations _______________________ (Footnote Continued)
struck down a portion of a federal law as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Due to Johnson, the substantive reach of the federal act was changed, and Johnson altered a range of conduct or class of persons that the statute punished. In Welch, Johnson was characterized as a substantive rule. Similarly, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), the Supreme Court examined whether Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), was retroactive. Miller ruled that juvenile homicide offenders cannot be given a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Since Miller prohibited a category of punishment, mandatory life without parole, for a class of people, juvenile homicide offenders, it likewise was considered a substantive rule. As noted by the majority, our Supreme Court’s application of the federal retroactivity analysis with respect to Miller was incorrect. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013).
-9- J-E01011-16
that place particular conduct or persons covered by the statute beyond the State's power to punish.” Id., at 351–352, 124 S.Ct. 2519 (citation omitted) . . . . Procedural rules, by contrast, “regulate only the manner of determining the defendant's culpability.” Schriro, 542 U.S., at 353, 124 S.Ct. 2519. Such rules alter “the range of permissible methods for determining whether a defendant's conduct is punishable.” Ibid. “They do not produce a class of persons convicted of conduct the law does not make criminal, but merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with use of the invalidated procedure might have been acquitted otherwise.” Id., at 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519.
Welch, supra at 1264-65 (emphasis in original). In Montgomery v.
Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), which is examined in footnote three,
supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the analysis employed in
Teague must to be used by the state courts when the new rule is
substantive.
This test first requires an analysis of whether a decision is a new rule
of constitutional law. It is beyond cavil that Alleyne is a new rule of
constitutional law. Prior to Alleyne, the defendant did not have a Sixth
Amendment right to have an impartial jury decide the existence, beyond a
reasonable doubt, of any fact that triggered application of mandatory
minimum sentence. Harris, supra; McMillan, supra. The next inquiry is
whether Alleyne announced a substantive rule or a watershed procedural
rule. If Alleyne announced neither a substantive rule nor a watershed
procedural rule, then the general rule applies, and Alleyne is not retroactive
to cases where a defendant’s sentence was final prior to Alleyne’s issuance.
- 10 - J-E01011-16
As the Court in Montgomery observed, “Substantive rules . . . set
forth categorical constitutional guarantees that place certain criminal laws
and punishments altogether beyond the State’s power to impose.”
Montgomery, supra at 729. Whereas, procedural rules change the
allowable method for determining whether a defendant's conduct can be
punished. Procedural rules simply raise the possibility that someone
convicted with use of the invalid procedure otherwise might have been
acquitted.
Pursuant to the Teague framework, Alleyne is a procedural rather
than substantive rule, which the majority appears to concede. Majority
opinion at 15. Alleyne regulates the manner of determining the level of a
defendant’s punishment--the permissible method for determining the
amount of punishment that a defendant is to receive for his conduct. The
Alleyne ruling does not prohibit the mandatory minimum punishments for a
class of offenders nor does it decriminalize conduct. The range of a
sentence remains the same. Alleyne procedurally mandates that a jury
determine facts triggering a minimum sentence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It raises the possibility that a person sentenced to a minimum by the
sentencing court may have been found not subject to the enhanced sentence
by a jury.
As every federal circuit court has concluded, I believe that Alleyne is
not entitled to retroactive effect under Teague. Butterworth v. United
- 11 - J-E01011-16
States, 775 F.3d 459 (1st Cir. 2015), certiorari denied, 135 S.Ct. 1517
(2015); United States v. Redd, 735 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2013); United
States v. Reyes, 755 F.3d 210 (3rd Cir. 2014), certiorari denied, 135 S.Ct.
695 (2014) ; United States v. Stewart, 540 F. App'x 171, 172 n.1 (4th Cir.
2013); United States v. Olvera, 775 F.3d 726 (5th Cir. 2015); In re
Mazzio, 756 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2014); Crayton v. United States, 799 F.3d
623 (7th Cir. 2015), certiorari denied, 136 S.Ct. 424 (2015); Walker v.
United States, 810 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2016), certiorari denied, 2016 WL
1545540 (May 16, 2016); Hughes v. United States, 770 F.3d 814 (9th Cir.
2014); In re Payne, 733 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2013); Jeanty v. Warden,
FCI-Miami, 757 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2014).
In my view, Alleyne also does not involve a watershed procedural
rule. The most recent decision addressing Alleyne’s retroactivity was
issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which provides this insightful
analysis as to why Alleyne does not fall within the parameters of a
watershed procedural rule:
The Supreme Court “gives retroactive effect to only a small set of ‘watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.’” Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004) (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 495, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990)). “To qualify as watershed, a rule must be necessary to prevent ‘an impermissibly large risk’ of an inaccurate” outcome and “must ‘alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.’” [Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007)] (quoting Schriro, 542
- 12 - J-E01011-16
U.S. at 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519). Explaining the exception is “extremely narrow” and observing “it is unlikely that any such rules have yet to emerge,” the Supreme Court has, “in the years since Teague, rejected every claim that a new rule satisfied the requirements for watershed status.” Id. at 417–18, 127 S.Ct. 1173 (quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352, 124 S.Ct. 2519) (internal marks omitted).
....
Although the circumstances and analysis have varied, the circuit courts have agreed that even if Alleyne announced a new rule, the decision is not the rare exception that announced a watershed rule of criminal procedure that “‘altered our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements' of the adjudicatory process.” United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 136 (3rd Cir. 2014) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060); accord Hughes v. United States, 770 F.3d 814, 818–19 (9th Cir. 2014).
Walker v. United States, supra at 574 (footnote omitted).
The fact that a jurist rather than a jury renders a decision does not
pertain to the fundamental fairness of a proceeding. Jury proceedings and
trial judge proceedings both carry factors rendering them more or less
accurate. A hearing before a trial judge rather than a jury contains no
increased potential for unfairness.
Herein, it is vastly significant that Apprendi, of which Alleyne is
merely an extension, has never been held to apply retroactively. E.g.
United States v. Swinton, 333 F.3d 481 (3rd Cir. 2003), certiorari denied,
540 U.S. 977 (2003). That fact has informed the decisions of the circuit
courts that Alleyne likewise is not retroactive. Simply put: “If Apprendi
does not apply retroactively, then a case extending Apprendi should not
- 13 - J-E01011-16
apply retroactively.” Walker, supra at 575 (quoting Hughes, supra at
818).
The United States Supreme Court decision in Schriro, supra, and its
discussion of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), is highly instructive.
Ring involved a successful Apprendi challenge to a death penalty statute,
just as Alleyne was a fruitful Apprendi claim. In Schriro, the United
States Supreme Court analyzed whether Ring applied retroactively and
concluded that Ring did not involve a watershed procedural rule. It found
that judicial fact-finding, as opposed to that of a jury, did not so seriously
diminish accuracy as to present a large risk of punishing conduct more
severely. The Schriro Court observed that “for every argument why juries
are more accurate factfinders, there is another why they are less accurate.”
Schriro, supra at 356. The High Court ruled that it was “implausible that
judicial factfinding so ‘seriously diminishes’ accuracy as to produce an
‘impermissibly large risk’ of injustice.” Id. (emphasis in original). Indeed, in
DeStefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631 (1968) (per curiam), the United States
Supreme Court actually refused to accord retroactivity to Duncan v.
Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Duncan applied the Sixth Amendment's
right to a jury trial for serious offenses during the guilt-phase
adjudicatory process to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hence, whether a judge or jury determines the facts essential to an
increased punishment is not material to the fundamental fairness or
- 14 - J-E01011-16
accuracy of application of a mandatory minimum sentence. The distinction
between whether a judge or jury determines the facts triggering a
mandatory minimum does not result in the procedure announced in Alleyne
becoming a watershed rule.
In my view, contrary to the majority’s analysis, mandatory minimum
sentences do not enjoy a type of unique status in Pennsylvania’s sentencing
scheme so as to elevate Alleyne to a watershed procedural rule. The
majority maintains that Alleyne is a watershed procedural rule because it
has been “cataclysmic to” Pennsylvania’s sentencing scheme, has “wreaked
havoc on mandatory minimum sentencing to Pennsylvania,” and has a
“unique and profound impact” in this Commonwealth. Majority opinion at 6,
13, 15. A mandatory minimum sentence sets the least amount of time that
a defendant will spend in jail. Mandatory minimums are no more inimitable
in Pennsylvania than in any other state; they have the same effect
everywhere. Alleyne impacts mandatory minimum sentencing statutes no
differently here than in any other jurisdiction.
If the majority is suggesting that Pennsylvania previously employed
more mandatory minimum sentencing provisions than other states, this
position is unsupported by citation. The number of statutes that a new
procedural rule affects is irrelevant to the determination of whether the rule
is watershed. It is categorically not part of the analysis of whether a
procedural rule is watershed. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit expressly rejected
- 15 - J-E01011-16
the position that Alleyne becomes watershed merely due to the “frequency
with which such minimums might apply[.]” Walker, supra at 575.
The majority emphasizes that we are free to find, under state law, that
a new constitutional rule of law is retroactive, even when the federal
constitution does not require it to be so. Significantly, however, the majority
neither sets forth the applicable precedent nor applies it. As we observed in
Commonwealth v. McCormick, 519 A.2d 442 (Pa.Super. 1986),
Pennsylvania courts have utilized differing methods of deciding whether a
new rule should apply retroactively. In McCormick, a direct appeal case,
this Court recognized that Pennsylvania courts have applied common law,
modified common law, and selective retroactivity approaches. “The common
law approach set forth in U.S. v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103,
2 L.Ed. 49 (1801) is that an appellate court must apply the law as it exists at
the time of its decision.” Id. at 447. In this situation, constitutional rules
always are applied retroactively whether on direct or collateral review. This
method was premised on the natural rights view underlying the foundation
of early American constitutional thought that the source of a new rule is the
Constitution itself, not any judicial power to create new rules of law.
Accordingly, “the underlying right necessarily pre-exists . . . articulation of
the new rule.” Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 272 (2008). This
approach is no longer utilized by either the United States Supreme Court or
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in deciding collateral review cases.
- 16 - J-E01011-16
The modified common law retroactivity test applied a new ruling to
cases pending on direct appeal, see United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S.
537 (1982), which, as observed, is the law in Pennsylvania, so long as the
issue is preserved or is a claim that cannot be waived.
The selective retroactivity approach examines “1) the purpose to be
served by the new standard; 2) the extent of reliance by law enforcement
authorities on the old standard; and 3) the effect on the administration of
justice.” McCormick, supra at 447 (citing Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293
(1967)). This latter test encompassed cases on collateral review. See
Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (1966). In McCormick, we
described this construct as whether “the purpose of the new standard affects
the truth finding function, thereby raising serious questions about the
accuracy of prior guilty verdicts[.]” McCormick, supra at 447. Thus, it is
indistinguishable from the watershed-procedural-rule analysis employed by
the federal courts.
The McCormick Court pointed out that each of these approaches has
been used to varying degrees in Pennsylvania. It further noted that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Cabeza, 469 A.2d 146
(Pa. 1983), a direct appeal case, held:
where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal.
- 17 - J-E01011-16
McCormick, supra at 447-448 (quoting Cabeza, supra at 148).
McCormick was decided prior to Teague, which attempted to
synthesize the United States Supreme Court’s various retroactivity
approaches. Before the Teague decision, Pennsylvania courts also
discussed retroactivity in Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 516 A.2d 1180,
1183 (Pa. 1986) (OAJC). In Gillespie, the Pennsylvania High Court was
faced with determining whether its prior ruling in Commonwealth v.
Tarver, 426 A.2d 569 (Pa. 1981), itself a collateral review case was
retroactive. The Tarver Court had ruled that a sentence for both felony
murder and robbery illegally violated double jeopardy where the underlying
felony was the robbery.
Despite the fact that Tarver involved a collateral review matter, the
Gillespie Court concluded that a new constitutional rule does not apply
retroactively “to any case on collateral review unless that decision was
handed down during the pendency of appellant’s direct appeal and it was
properly preserved there, or . . . was nonwaivable.” Gillespie, supra at
1183. The Court added that, although the legality of sentence issue in
Gillespie was non-waivable, it would not be retroactively applied because
the Tarver decision occurred after the finality of Gillespie’s judgment of
sentence. It is evident that under any of the retroactivity tests used in
Pennsylvania, aside from the no longer applicable common law approach,
- 18 - J-E01011-16
see Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (1973); Commonwealth v.
Geschwendt, 454 A.2d 991, 999 (Pa. 1982), Appellant’s Alleyne challenge
does not apply retroactively during PCRA review under state law.
At its essence, the majority’s approach rests largely upon tautology.
Since the statute is unconstitutional, it was void when passed, rendering
Appellant’s sentence illegal. The majority overlooks the singularly critical
fact that, when that statute was enacted as well as when Appellant was
sentenced, the statute in question was, in fact, constitutional. McMillan;
supra; Harris, supra. Hence, the statute was neither void when passed
nor void from its inception.
Alleyne overruled Harris and McMillan and rendered a constitutional
statute unconstitutional as of the date that Alleyne was disseminated. It is
entitled to effect only to cases pending on direct review when it was issued.
Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum statutes cannot be considered
unconstitutionally void ab initio as the United States Supreme Court initially
upheld the identical sentencing paradigm in passing on the constitutionality
of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712. McMillan, supra; see also Commonwealth v.
Stokes, 38 A.3d 846 (Pa.Super. 2011) (upholding 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712, but
opining that the statute would fail if Harris and McMillan were overturned).
In Commonwealth v. Derhammer, 2016 Pa Super 34 n. 10, __
A.3d __ , n.10 (Pa.Super. 2016) (emphasis added), we set forth:
- 19 - J-E01011-16
There are exceptions to the [Ex parte] Siebold, [100 U.S. 371 (1879)] pronouncement that an unconstitutional law is void from the outset. That is, where there are actions taken in justifiable reliance upon a judicial ruling that the statute was constitutional at one point in time, the statute is not always considered a nullity and as if it never existed. See 46 Am.Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 196; Heilig Estate, 13 Pa. D. & C.3d 1, *8; see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 199 (1973) (limiting its decision in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886), which reiterated the constitutionally void ab initio doctrine espoused in Siebold by stating, “However appealing the logic of Norton may have been in the abstract, its abandonment reflected our recognition that statutory or even judge-made rules of law are hard facts on which people must rely in making decisions and in shaping their conduct.”); see also Thomas Raeburn White, Commentaries on the Constitution of Pennsylvania, 27-28 (1907) (discussing exceptions to unconstitutionally void ab initio doctrine).
Appellant’s sentence was not illegal when imposed, he was sentenced
under the statute in justifiable reliance upon United States Supreme Court
precedent that it was constitutional, and the statute is not a nullity.
Appellant’s sentence can be considered illegal now only if Alleyne is held to
apply retroactively. As my above analysis demonstrates, Alleyne is not
retroactive under either the federal retroactivity test or the state one.
Hence, this dissent.
Judge Olson and Judge Stabile Join this Dissenting Opinion.
- 20 -