J-S79015-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RICHARD CHARLES EVANS

Appellant No. 3292 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 3, 2012

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014114-2009

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2016

Appellant, Richard Charles Evans, appeals nunc pro tunc from the 

judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common 

Pleas, following his bench trial convictions of one count each of possession of 

a controlled substance with the intent to distribute (“PWID”), knowing or 

intentional possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”).1 We 

vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re-sentencing. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. 

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with various drug-related offenses for 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16), 780-113(a)(32), and 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), respectively. 
J-S79015-16

- 2 -

possessing drugs and a firearm. Following a bench trial on June 21, 2012, 

the court convicted Appellant of one count each of PWID, knowing or 

intentional possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and PIC. The court sentenced Appellant on August 3, 2012, 

to an aggregate term of five (5) to ten (10) years’ imprisonment, plus five 

(5) years’ probation, which included a mandatory minimum term pursuant to 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1 (requiring imposition of mandatory minimum 

sentences for certain drug offenses committed with firearms). 

On August 13, 2012, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, 

which the court denied on January 3, 2013. Appellant filed a pro se PCRA 

petition on December 30, 2013. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who 

filed an amended petition. On September 29, 2015, the PCRA court granted 

Appellant’s petition and reinstated Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro 

tunc. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 29, 2015. On 

November 6, 2015, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); and Appellant 

complied on December 3, 2015.2 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement appears to be untimely. Nevertheless, 

Appellant challenges only the legality of his sentence, which the court 

imposed pursuant to a mandatory minimum sentencing statute and 

addressed in its opinion. See Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721 

(Pa.Super. 2001) (explaining challenge to application of mandatory

minimum sentence is non-waiveable challenge to legality of sentence which, 

assuming proper jurisdiction, this Court can address sua sponte). 
J-S79015-16

- 3 -

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO A NEW SENTENCING 

HEARING BECAUSE HIS SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL, HAVING 

BEEN IMPOSED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING STATUTE? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 2). 

Appellant argues 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1 is unconstitutional pursuant to 

Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 

(2013), and its Pennsylvania progeny. Appellant maintains his mandatory 

minimum sentence under Section 9712.1 is illegal. Appellant concludes this 

Court should vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing. We agree. 

In Alleyne, the United States 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 fact-finder and found beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Alleyne, supra. This Court later addressed the 

constitutionality of Section 9712.1, in Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 

A.3d 86 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc). Relying on Alleyne, Newman held 

that 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712.1 could no longer pass constitutional muster as it 

“permits the trial court, as opposed to the jury, to increase a defendant’s 

minimum sentence based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the 

defendant was dealing drugs and possessed a firearm, or that a firearm was 

in close proximity to the drugs.” Id. at 98. Newman further held (1) the 

non-offending provisions of Section 9712.1 were not severable, and the 
J-S79015-16

- 4 -

statute was unconstitutional in its entirety; (2) a sentencing challenge 

premised on Alleyne implicates the legality of the sentence and cannot be 

waived. Id. at 90, 101. 

Instantly, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory minimum 

term of incarceration pursuant to Section 9712.1. Under Newman, 

Appellant is entitled to a remand for re-sentencing without application of any 

unlawful mandatory minimum sentences. Accordingly, we vacate the 

judgment of sentence in its entirety and remand for re-sentencing without 

imposition of mandatory minimum terms. See Commonwealth v. 

Bartrug, 732 A.2d 1287 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied, 561 Pa. 651, 747 

A.2d 896 (1999) (holding sentencing error in multi-count case normally 

requires appellate court to vacate entire judgment of sentence so trial court 

can restructure its sentencing plan on remand). 

Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for re-sentencing. 

Jurisdiction is relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/2/2016