The Pennsylvania Superior Court has vacated the sentence of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky and sent the case back to the trial court so that the former Penn State assistant football coach can be resentenced.

A three-judge Superior Court panel Tuesday unanimously vacated Sandusky's sentence, finding that it went against recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent that struck down certain mandatory minimum sentencing schemes as unconstitutional. Sandusky, who was convicted in 2012 on 45 of 48 counts related to sexually abusing numerous children, had been sentenced to serve 30 to 60 years in prison.

“We agree with the parties that pursuant to the holdings in Alleyne [v. United States] and [Commonwealth v.] Wolf, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences was illegal,” Judge Carolyn Nichols said in the court's 119-page opinion. “Accordingly we affirm that part of the PCRA court's order denying a new trial, but we vacate the judgment of sentence in its entirety and remand for re-sentencing without imposition of mandatory minimum terms.”

Sandusky had raised 22 challenges in the latest appeal, which was taken under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, but the intermediate court rejected each argument, except the challenge to the sentence.

Sandusky's attorney, Alexander Lindsay, said he plans to seek review from the Supreme Court.

“In doing so, the court has an opportunity to correct one of the most profound injustices in the history of American Jurisprudence,” he said in a statement.

Joe Grace, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, said in an emailed statement that Sandusky's claims have been “thoroughly explored” through multiple briefs and hearings, and prosecutors are pleased the conviction remains intact.

“Our office looks forward to appearing for the new sentencing proceeding and submitting argument to the court as to why this convicted sex offender should remain behind bars for a long time,” Grace said.

Sandusky's appeal argued that court decisions showed his prior attorneys, Karl R. Rominger and Joseph L. Amendola, provided ineffective assistance. Sandusky said, among other things, that he should have been advised against going on national television to talk with Bob Costas, and that he should have been advised to testify at trial.

But on those ineffective-assistance issues and several more, the Superior Court panel agreed with the lower court's findings that the challenges did not merit a new trial.

“Although attorney Amendola testified that he would have made a different decision 'as a Monday morning quarterback,' we do not employ hindsight analysis in evaluating the reasonableness of counsel's trial strategies,” Nichols said, regarding Sandusky's challenge to Amendola's decision to call a certain witness. “Therefore, we agree with the PCRA court's conclusion that attorney Amendola pursued a reasonable strategy, and could not be found constitutionally ineffective.”

READ THE OPINION