J

### -S80029-16 NON-PRECEDENTIALDECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

1 IN THE SUPERIORCOURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. RAYMOND ROBERT DAVIS 

### Appellant No. 284 MDA2016 Appeal

### from the PCRA

### Order enteredJanuary 13, 2016 In the CourtofCommon 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 theJanuary 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 ReliefAct (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

### 9541-9546. Appellantargues the PCRA 

### court erred in not 

### finding 

### Alleynel applicable to his case.2 We

1

### Alleyne v. 

### UnitedStates, 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 ofthe 

### crime to be 

### submitted to 

### the

### factfinder and found beyond a reasonabledoubt.

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 notaddressthe 

### ineffective assistanceclaim.J

### -S80029-16
agree. 

### Accordingly, we reverse the 

### order denying PCRA 

### relief, vacate the 

### judgment, and remand 

### for resentencing. The 

### underlying factsare not in dispute3 and 

### the PCRA

### courtadequately summarized the procedural 

### history in itsJanuary 13, 2016 opinion.4 Onthe 

### applicability of

### Alleyne, the PCRA 

### court determined 

### thatAppellant'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 

### CourtOpinion, 

### 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 ofthe 

### petition. 

## -2J

### -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

### thatthis 

### mattershould 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