unconstitutional on its face, non-severable, and void.” Id. at 663. Following Wolfe, our Supreme Court issued a per curiam order vacating this Court’s decision in Pennybaker, and remanding “for resentencing without application of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.4[,]” citing Hopkins and Wolfe in support. Commonwealth v. Pennybaker, 145 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2016) (per curiam order). In the present case, Appellant argues, and the Commonwealth concedes, that Wolfe requires this Court to deem section 9718.4 unconstitutional. We agree. Under not only Wolfe, but also Hopkins, Newman, and our Supreme Court’s per curiam order in Pennybaker, it is clear that the ‘proof at sentencing1 provision set forth in section 9718.4(b) violates the rule announced in Alleyne, and that it is not severable from the rema per. 2014)
holding that 42 pacs  9712 and 9713 are unconstitutional holding that 18 pacs  6317b is unconstitutional holding that the proof at sentencing1 provision contained in 42 pacs  97121 is unconstitutional in light of alleyne and is not severable from the remainder of the statute holding that laws that are administered with an unequal hand and an evil eye are unconstitutional holding that two statutes that are part of the general assemblys adam walsh act are unconstitutional and are severed and that after severance they may not be enforced