Legal Opinion

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 21, 2018No. 86 MAP 2016PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Saylor

In this appeal, the Court considers whether a mandatory minimum sentencing provision that does not require proof of any aggravating fact violates the Sixth Amendment per Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 , 133 S.Ct. 2151 , 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).

At a jury trial, Appellee was convicted of, among other offenses, rape of a child. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c). At sentencing, the common pleas court implemented the mandatory minimum sentence for that offense per Section 9718(a)(3) of the Sentencing Code, which, in relevant part, prescribes as follows:

A person convicted of the following offenses…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. ValentineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. Commonwealth v. GolsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Smith, R. v. Wells, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. Allegheny Reprod. Health v. PA DHSSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  5. Com. v. Barger, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API