J-S81005-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANGEL VASQUEZ-DIAZ :
:
Appellant : No. 369 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 17, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008880-2012
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 22, 2017
The well-reasoned dissent authored by Justice Debra Todd in
Commonwealth v. Wolfe, ___Pa.___, 140 A.3d 651 (2016), is reflective of
my view on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as well as
the deference we should give to the prerogative of the duly elected branch
of government, the Pennsylvania Legislature, to establish such sentences
where deemed appropriate. See Commonwealth v. Wolfe, ___Pa.___,
140 A.3d 651 (2016) (Todd, J., dissenting) (asserting that the imposition of
a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 did not
violate the Sixth Amendment as the fact that triggered the application of the
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S81005-16
mandatory minimum was stated in the criminal information and proven to
the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of the offense).
However, the Majority here correctly concludes that, under current
Pennsylvania law, Appellant is entitled to a resentencing hearing as he
received a mandatory minimum sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718, a statute
that our Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Wolfe pursuant to the
principles set forth in Alleyne v. United States, ___U.S.___, 133 S.Ct.
2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). The Superior Court, as an intermediate
appellate court, is required to follow Supreme Court mandates and bound to
effectuate Supreme Court precedent. Walnut St. Assocs., Inc. v.
Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 610 Pa. 371, 391, 20 A.3d 468, 480 (2011).
Judge Bowes joins the concurring memorandum.
-2-
Com. v. Vasquez-Diaz, A.
Combined Opinion