such reliance was misplaced, as Gonzalez held only that second-degree burglary should not be considered as a “history of present or past violent behavior” under Section 4503(1) of the RRRI Act, and did not address whether first-degree burglary falls within Section 4503(1). Rather than relying on Gonzalez, Appellant suggests that we follow the Superior Court’s approach in Commonwealth v. Hansley, 994 A.2d 1150 (Pa.Super.2010) (finding defendant who was previously convicted of possession with intent to deliver was an “eligible offender” under the RRRI Act because Section 4503(6) did not specifically list that offense among the other enumerated disqualifying drug offenses); see Commonwealth v. Hansley, 616 Pa. 367, 47 A.3d 1180 (2012), and Commonwealth v. Main, 6 A.3d 1026 (Pa.Super.2010) (<HOLDING>). He claims that these cases followed the
holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines holding defendant who is sentenced to a mandatoryminimum sentence may still be eligible to receive a reduced minimum sentence under the rrri act holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence