Com. v. Diaz, A. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J. S15040/17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :           PENNSYLVANIA
    v.                   :
    :
    ALEXANDER DIAZ,                        :          No. 2505 EDA 2014
    :
    Appellant       :
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, April 25, 2012,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-23-CR-0000992-2011
    BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:                FILED MARCH 16, 2017
    Alexander Diaz appeals from the judgment of sentence of April 25,
    2012, following reinstatement of his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc.
    We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
    The trial court summarized the history of this case as follows:
    Appellant/Defendant was tried and convicted
    for possession with intent to deliver [(“PWID”)]
    heroin and related crimes, after the undercover
    purchase of heroin on September 23, 2010 in
    Chester, Delaware County, Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania.[Footnote 1]
    [Footnote 1] Two prior undercover heroin
    purchases occurred on September 17,
    2010 and September 21, 2010 involving
    the defendant’s co-defendant, Alexander
    Santo.
    Appellant, Alexander Diaz, appeals from the
    judgment of sentence imposed on April 25, 2012,
    J. S15040/17
    following his conviction for [PWID], Conspiracy to
    delivery   []   of   heroin   and   possession  of
    paraphernalia.[Footnote 2]
    [Footnote 2] On December 8, 2011 the
    defendant was found guilty after a Jury
    Trial on the merits.        Sentencing
    proceeded thereafter on April 25, 2012
    together with a Post-Sentence Rights
    colloquy. A counseled Motion to Modify
    and    Reduce    Sentence   was    filed
    thereafter on May 7, 2012 which was
    denied by order of court dated June 1,
    2012.    No direct appeal was filed or
    preserved.
    On September 26, 2012 a Pro Se
    PCRA Petition was filed averring,
    inter alia, ineffectiveness for failure to
    file or preserve the defendant’s direct
    appeal rights.
    After appointment of collateral
    counsel the defendant was granted leave
    and     continuances    to   file  multiple
    amendments        to   defendant’s   PCRA
    Petition.    There appearing [to be] no
    dispute the Defendant’s rights on direct
    appeal were not properly protected by
    trial counsel and thus extinguished, this
    court on July 28, 2014 granted the nunc
    pro      tunc    reinstatement    of    the
    Defendant’s right to direct appeal.
    The Office of the Delaware County
    Public Defender[,] consistent with such
    time constraints [as] this court directed
    via its July 28, 2014[] order reinstating
    nunc pro tunc direct appellate rights[,]
    lodged on August 29, 2014[] an appeal
    notice from the Defendant’s sentencing
    judgment.
    -2-
    J. S15040/17
    On Appeal, Appellant challenges his convictions
    for lack of sufficient evidence. Appellant/Defendant
    also attacks his sentence contending the Trial Court
    impermissibly and unconstitutionally imposed a
    mandatory minimum sentence in violation of
    Alleyne v. United States, 
    133 S. Ct. 2151
    , 
    186 L. Ed. 2d 314
    (2013).
    Appellant proceeded to a two-day jury trial on
    December 7-8, 2010. Appellant was found guilty of
    the aforementioned charges.       Subsequently, on
    April 25, 2012, with the benefit of a presentence
    investigation and report, this Court imposed the
    following sentence. On the PWID heroin conviction,
    this Court imposed a sentence of 48 months to
    96 months imprisonment with a 10 year consecutive
    probation for the criminal conspiracy conviction and
    an additional 1 year probation consecutive to the
    conspiracy conviction for the possession of
    paraphernalia conviction.     (Sentencing, 4/25/12,
    pp. 54-62).
    Trial court opinion, 6/28/16 at 1-2 (emphasis added and deleted).
    On January 9, 2015, the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise
    statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days pursuant to
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and appellant timely complied on January 28, 2015. On
    June 28, 2016, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.1
    Appellant has raised the following issue for this court’s review:
    Whether the mandatory minimum sentence
    imposed in this matter on the charge of
    [PWID] is illegal and must be vacated since the
    statutory provisions utilized have been ruled
    unconstitutional[?]
    1
    The reasons for the nearly two-year delay between when appellant filed his
    notice of appeal on August 29, 2014, and receipt of the record in this court
    on July 1, 2016, are unclear.
    -3-
    J. S15040/17
    Appellant’s brief at 7 (capitalization deleted).2
    Here, appellant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of
    2-4 years’ imprisonment for PWID under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317 (drug-free
    school zones). (Trial court opinion, 6/28/16 at 5.) In Commonwealth v.
    Hopkins, 
    117 A.3d 247
    (Pa. 2015), our supreme court concluded that the
    United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne rendered Section 6317
    unconstitutional in its entirety.   See also Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 
    140 A.3d 651
    , 653 (Pa. 2016) (“The effect of Alleyne’s new rule was to
    invalidate   a   range   of   Pennsylvania    sentencing    statutes   predicating
    mandatory minimum penalties upon non-elemental facts and requiring such
    facts to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing.”).
    The Commonwealth argues that the trial court imposed a sentence of
    4-8 years, twice the mandatory minimum.             (Commonwealth’s brief at 6.)
    Therefore, according to the Commonwealth, the 2-year mandatory did not
    affect appellant’s sentence. (Id. at 7.) However, the trial court specifically
    determined that Section 6317 applied.        (Appellant’s brief at 14; trial court
    opinion, 6/28/16 at 5.)       See Commonwealth v. Barnes,               A.3d     ,
    
    2016 WL 7449232
    at *5 (Pa. 2016) (rejecting the Commonwealth’s
    argument that the sentencing court was not without authority to enter the
    appellant’s sentence because it possessed separate discretionary authority
    2
    Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim has been abandoned on
    appeal.
    -4-
    J. S15040/17
    under which he could have received the same sentence).       We vacate
    appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court for
    resentencing without application of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317.
    Judgment of sentence vacated.         Case remanded.   Jurisdiction
    relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 3/16/2017
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Diaz, A. No. 2505 EDA 2014

Filed Date: 3/16/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024