Opinion
J. S42036/15 No. 1496 EDA 2014
07-31-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER GLADNEY, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-51-CR-0002090-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Christopher Gladney, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following a plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver ("PWID") and possession of a controlled substance. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court. See Trial Ct. Op., 2/12/15, at 1-3. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant raises the following issue:
Did the trial court impose the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 in violation of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Alleyne v. United States ?Appellant's Brief at 3.
Appellant argues that the en banc Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Vargas , 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), held that 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 was unconstitutional. He contends that because he was sentenced under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(i), this Court must vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. We agree Appellant is entitled to relief.
In Commonwealth v. Dixon , 53 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. 2012), this Court set forth the following standard of review:
Application of a mandatory sentencing provision implicates the legality, not the discretionary, aspects of sentencing. In reviewing the trial court's interpretation of statutory language, we are mindful of the well-settled rule that statutory interpretation implicates a question of law. Thus, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo.Id. at 842 (citations and punctuation omitted).
Recently, in a series of cases, this Court has held that mandatory minimum sentences imposed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 were illegal. See Commonwealth v. Mosley , 114 A.3d 1072, 1091 (Pa. Super. 2015) (vacating mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Vargas , 108 A.3d 858, 876 (Pa. Super.) (en banc) (holding "18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 unconstitutional in its entirety."), appeal denied, 154 EAL 2015 (Pa. July 29, 2015); Commonwealth v. Cardwell , 105 A.3d 748, 755 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concluding trial court erred by imposing mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(4)(i)); Commonwealth v. Fennell , 105 A.3d 13, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (vacating mandatory minimum sentence imposed per 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(7)(i)); Commonwealth v. Thompson , 93 A.3d 478, 493 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding mandatory minimum sentence under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(2)(ii) was illegal). Instantly, given the Mosley Court vacated a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under Subsection 7508(a)(3)(ii), which is virtually identical to the instant Subsection 7508(a)(3)(i) at issue, we similarly vacate Appellant's sentence and remand for resentencing. See Mosley , 114 A.3d at 1091.
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/31/2015
Image materials not available for display.