Commonwealth v. DiMatteo

177 A.3d 182 (Pa. 2018) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 18, 2018 · No. No. 10 MAP 2017

Summary

This is a concurring opinion in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case concerning mandatory minimum sentences imposed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 and the effect of Alleyne v. United States. Justice Baer agreed that an Alleyne-based challenge is cognizable under the PCRA, that Section 7508 is unconstitutional, and that the defendant’s sentence was illegal because Alleyne was decided before his judgment became final. He also agreed that the appropriate remedy was resentencing without application of Section 7508, rather than vacating the guilty plea.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Justice Baer; Justice Mundy; Justice Todd; Justice Wecht
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
January 18, 2018
Docket number
No. 10 MAP 2017
Procedural posture
The Commonwealth appealed from the Superior Court's order reversing the PCRA court's denial of DiMatteo's petition, vacating his judgment of sentence, and remanding for resentencing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance of appeal.
Precedential value
Published Pennsylvania Supreme Court concurring opinion; the court's disposition and majority holdings are precedential, while the concurrence's separate reasoning is not independently controlling.
Parties
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Phillip DiMatteo
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingstate post-conviction reliefcriminal proceduresixth amendmentappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal proceduresentencingpost-conviction reliefconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a challenge to the legality of a mandatory minimum sentence is cognizable under the Post Conviction Relief Act.
  2. Whether Alleyne v. United States renders 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 unconstitutional.
  3. Whether Alleyne was available to DiMatteo because his judgment of sentence was not final when Alleyne was decided.
  4. Whether the proper remedy was resentencing without application of § 7508 or vacatur of the entire guilty plea and reinstatement of the withdrawn charges.

Holdings

  1. A claim generally challenging the legality of a sentence is cognizable under the PCRA and may establish eligibility for PCRA relief.
  2. Alleyne renders 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 unconstitutional because the statute requires judicial fact-finding concerning drug weight and permits the fact to be established by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Because DiMatteo's judgment of sentence was not final when Alleyne was decided, Alleyne applied to his case and made his § 7508 sentences illegal.
  4. The proper remedy was to affirm the Superior Court's order vacating the judgment of sentence and remanding for a new sentencing hearing without consideration of § 7508, rather than vacating the entire guilty plea.

Key quotations

The Alleyne Court held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime must be treated as an element of the offense, submitted to a jury rather than a judge, and found beyond a reasonable doubt. (3)
a judgment is not final until the availability of appeal has been exhausted, and any judicial changes in the law are applicable to a case prior to final judgment. (4)

Factual background

DiMatteo received aggregate prison sentences that included mandatory minimum terms imposed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508, based on the weight and classification of controlled substances. He entered an open guilty plea, and the record did not establish a negotiated agreement conditioning the Commonwealth's withdrawal of charges on imposition of the mandatory minimum sentences. After Alleyne was decided, DiMatteo challenged the legality of his sentences through a timely PCRA petition.

Procedural history

DiMatteo entered an open guilty plea in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and received aggregate sentences including mandatory minimum terms under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508. The PCRA court denied his timely PCRA petition challenging the legality of those sentences under Alleyne v. United States. The Superior Court reversed, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for resentencing; the Supreme Court affirmed that disposition.

Remand instructions

Affirm the Superior Court's judgment reversing the PCRA court's order, vacating DiMatteo's judgment of sentence, and remanding to the trial court for resentencing without consideration of 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…