Court Opinion

ID: 9379611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 20:07:57.189134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.448058
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                               MIDDLE DISTRICT

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   : No. 518 MAL 2022
                                                 :
                     Respondent                  :
                                                 : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                 : from the Order of the Superior Court
              v.                                 :
                                                 :
                                                 :
 JONATHAN RICHARDS,                              :
                                                 :
                     Petitioner                  :

                                         ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

      (1)    In light of Alleyne v. United States, 70 U.S. 99 (2013) is it not
             unconstitutional to consider an acceptance of ARD as a prior offense for
             sentencing purposes without the procedural protections afforded by
             Alleyne, i.e., a prior offense can only be determined by proof beyond a
             reasonable doubt?

      (2)    Is it not fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process to equate a prior
             acceptance of ARD with a prior conviction for purposes of a recidivist
             mandatory minimum sentence even though that acceptance involved no
             proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.