Commonwealth v. Belak, 573 Pa. 414

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the mandatory sentencing provision in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(2), requiring at least 25 years’ imprisonment for certain repeat violent offenders, was severable from and not invalidated by the unconstitutional presumption in § 9714(a)(1). The court reinstated George Belak’s judgment of sentence and dismissed his ineffective-assistance claims without prejudice to pursuing them under the Post-Conviction Relief Act.

Holdings

1. Under Commonwealth v. Grant, a petitioner generally must wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review; because Belak's case was on direct appeal when Grant was decided and lacked an evidentiary record and trial-court opinion addressing the claims, his claims were dismissed without prejudice to presentation in a PCRA petition.
2. Commonwealth v. Butler did not require resentencing because Belak was sentenced under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(2), not § 9714(a)(1). Subsection (a)(2) does not impose a presumption or place a burden on the defendant to prove that he is not a high-risk dangerous offender.
3. Section 9714(a)(2) is severable from § 9714(a)(1) and is not unconstitutional merely because § 9714(a)(1) was held unconstitutional in Butler.
4. The court declined to consider Belak's Apprendi argument because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief and had not included it in his petition for allowance of appeal or initial brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Belak's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims should be decided on direct appeal or dismissed without prejudice to collateral review under Commonwealth v. Grant.
2. Whether Commonwealth v. Butler, which invalidated the burden-shifting presumption in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(1), required vacatur and resentencing where Belak was sentenced under § 9714(a)(2).
3. Whether § 9714(a)(2) is severable from § 9714(a)(1) and remains constitutional after § 9714(a)(1) was held unconstitutional.
4. Whether Belak's Apprendi sentencing argument could be considered when raised for the first time in his reply brief.

Disposition

other