Com. v. Healey
| Decision Date | 21 June 1985 |
| Citation | 494 A.2d 869,343 Pa.Super. 323 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Gerard HEALEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Paul J. Walker, Asst. Dist. Atty., Scranton, for Commonwealth, appellant.
James O'Brien, Asst. Public Defender, Scranton, for appellee.
Before BECK, POPOVICH and TROMMER *, JJ.
Appellee was convicted of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person. On this appeal by the Commonwealth, we are asked to determine under what circumstances a defendant visibly possesses a firearm, so as to come within the provisions of the mandatory sentencing requirement of section 9712 of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.
The relevant facts are as follows. The victim received a call from a friend who told him appellee wanted to see him. The victim went to appellee's apartment house, climbed the stairs to appellee's apartment, knocked on the door, and appellee fired a shotgun blast through the apartment door, hitting the victim and causing him injuries.
After the appellee was convicted, the Commonwealth sought to have him sentenced under Section 9712:
(a) Mandatory sentence.--Any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) (relating to robbery), aggravated assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) () or kidnapping, or who is convicted of attempt to commit any of these crimes, shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary.
(Emphasis added.)
At his sentencing hearing, appellee argued that since he shot the victim from behind a closed door, he did not visibly possess a firearm because the victim did not see the firearm. The trial judge sentenced appellee to two and one-half (2 1/2) to five (5) years imprisonment, a term below the statutory mandate of section 9712. The Commonwealth appeals the judgment of sentence.
To determine the scope of section 9712, we must define "visibly possessed." Appellee would have us hold that the victim must see the firearm brandished by his assailant. We decline to construe section 9712 so narrowly in contravention of the purpose of the section.
It is clear that section 9712 was enacted to deter the introduction of a firearm into the criminal acts specified in the statute. It is the potential danger of the firearm which section 9712 addresses, not just the visibility of the firearm. Under appellee's definition of "visibly possessed," a defendant who robs a victim while pointing a firearm at the victim's chest would be subject to a mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Wooten
...of sentence. The line of Superior Court cases interpreting the pertinent language of section 9712 begins with Commonwealth v. Healey, 343 Pa.Super. 323, 494 A.2d 869 (1985). At the defendant's sentencing hearing in that case, he argued that since he shot the victim from behind a closed door......
-
Com. v. Gonzales
...Pa.Super. 200, 497 A.2d 1374 (1985), which concerned section 9712 in the context of an aggravated assault. Citing Commonwealth v. Healey, 343 Pa.Super. 323, 494 A.2d 869 (1985) (construing the meaning of the statutory language "visibly possessed a firearm"), our court held that possession w......
-
Commonwealth v. Townsend
...during the offense. Section 9712 applies when possession "manifests itself in the process of the crime." Commonwealth v. Healey, 343 Pa.Super. 323, 325-26, 494 A.2d 869, 870 (1985) (mandatory minimum sentence applied even where defendant fired a shotgun through a closed door because use of ......
-
Com. v. Galindes
...a "pop" and saw a flash. Further, the police never recovered a gun. We find no merit to their claims. ¶ 17 In Commonwealth v. Healey, 343 Pa.Super. 323, 494 A.2d 869, 870 (1985), our Court held that within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, visible possession of a gun is not necessary to f......