# Commonwealth v. Mazzetti

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 4, 2012 · 615 Pa. 555

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751561

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Robert MAZZETTI, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 4, 2012
- **Citations:** 615 Pa. 555; 44 A.3d 58; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1311; 2012 WL 1975370
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCAFFERY, Melvin, Orie, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding, in context of Commonwealth being precluded from seeking mandatory sentence at revocation of probation where it did not seek the mandatory sentence at the original sentencing proceeding, “[t]his Court may not supply omissions in a statute [Section 6317]” (internal quot…
- holding that the court has the authority to consider and select from various statutorily-defined sentencing alternatives in the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence
- affirming trial court’s refusal to impose mandatory minimum at re-sentencing following revocation of probation, where, at defendant’s original sentencing, Commonwealth had agreed to waive mandatory minimum, provided no notice of intent to pursue mandatory minimum, and presente…

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I agree with the per curiam opinion’s conclusion that the Commonwealth could not compel the trial court to apply the mandatory minimum sentence at Appellee’s resentencing. I *571 write separately to acknowledge the Commonwealth’s ability to reserve the right to seek the mandatory minimum sentence should the terms of the plea agreement be violated. That is, waiver of the mandatory here could have been expressly premised on successful completion of probation; a violation of probation would bring it back into play.
Just as the Commonwealth could waive the mandatory minimum sentence in exchange for Appellee agreeing to certain terms and conditions, it also possesses the ability to reserve the right to re-invoke its options should the terms or conditions of the plea agreement be violated. Here, the Commonwealth did not reserve such a right, and hence I join the per curiam opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751561. Public record. Not legal advice.