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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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