J -S80029-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RAYMOND ROBERT DAVIS
Appellant No. 284 MDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order entered January 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No: CP-40-CR-0002292-2010
BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and RANSOM, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Appellant, Raymond Robert Davis, appeals from the January 13, 2016
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County ("PCRA
court"), denying his petition for collateral relief pursuant to the Post
Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. Appellant argues
the PCRA court erred in not finding Alleynel applicable to his case.2 We
1 Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct 2151 (2013). In Alleyne, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that any fact increasing the mandatory minimum
sentence for a crime is considered an element of the crime to be submitted
to the factfinder and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 Appellant also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a
claim under Alleyne. Because of our disposition on the first claim, we will
not address the ineffective assistance claim.
J -S80029-16
agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying PCRA relief, vacate the
judgment, and remand for resentencing.
The underlying facts are not in dispute3 and the PCRA court adequately
summarized the procedural history in its January 13, 2016 opinion.4 On the
applicability of Alleyne, the PCRA court determined that Appellant's instant
PCRA petition was timely, but that he was not entitled to relief under
Alleyne because "at the time Alleyne was decided, [Appellant]'s direct
appeal had ended." PCRA Court Opinion, 1/13/16, at 16 (emphasis added).
We disagree.
Following a breakdown in the court's operation, the PCRA court stayed
the filing of Appellant's second PCRA petition.5 An Appellant "should not be
precluded from appellate review based on what was, in effect, an
administrative breakdown on the part of the trial court." Commonwealth
v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 79 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also
Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a trial
court's misstatement of the appeal period constituted a breakdown in the
3
For detailed information about the facts of the case, see our decision on
direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Davis, No. 911 MDA 2012, unpublished
memorandum at 1-8 (Pa. Super. filed March 12, 2013).
4 See PCRA Court Opinion, 1/13/16, at 1-2
5
The PCRA court improperly stayed the proceedings on the second PCRA
petition under the mistaken belief that a stay would preserve the timeliness
of the petition.
-2
J -S80029-16
court's operation)). It is undisputed that Appellant was sentenced to a
mandatory minimum based on the weight of the drugs in contravention to
Alleyne. Moreover, the Commonwealth concedes that this matter should be
remanded for resentencing. See Commonwealth's letter to the Superior
Court Prothonotary dated September 9, 2016 (citing Commonwealth v.
Ruiz, 131 A.2d 54, 60 (Pa. Super. 2015). Therefore, we conclude that
Appellant is entitled to a remand for resentencing without application of any
unlawful mandatory minimum.
Order reversed; judgment of sentence vacated; remanded for
resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2017
-3