Com. v. Logan
| Decision Date | 26 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 225,225 |
| Citation | 404 Pa.Super. 100,590 A.2d 300 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Elsie LOGAN, Appellee. PITTSBURGH 1990 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Kevin F. McCarthy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for Com., appellant.
Alonzo Burney, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before ROWLEY, POPOVICH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
In this appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, we are faced by a question of first impression: Whether a sentencing court may impose a sentence below the minimum sentence mandated by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(iii). Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments presented, we find that the lower court erred when sentencing appellee to one (1) to three (3) years incarceration for possession with intent to deliver approximately 102 grams of cocaine, a crime which carries a mandatory mandatory minimum sentence of four (4) years in prison and a $25,000.00 fine. Accordingly, we vacate appellee's sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(iii).
On January 19, 1989, appellee, Elsie Logan, was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, 1 possession of cocaine 2 and possession of drug paraphernalia. 3 The following day, appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, provided written notice to appellee and the trial court of its intention to request imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence of four (4) years and a $25,000.00 fine as provided for in the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508.
On March 23, 1989, the sentencing court imposed a sentence of four (4) to eight (8) years of incarceration and a fine of $25,000.00. However, upon review of appellee's motion to modify sentence, the sentencing court vacated appellee's sentence and, on January 30, 1990, resentenced appellee to one (1) to three (3) years of incarceration to be served in the Female Offenders Program and five (5) years probation for her possession with intent to deliver conviction. The court also sentenced appellee to serve one (1) year on probation for her simple possession conviction. 4 When resentencing appellee, the lower court reasoned that it should be permitted "to temper justice [with mercy]", regardless of the mandatory language of the statute. Trial Court Opinion, p. 10. The court also believed that the "unfettered discretion" of the prosecution to compel imposition of the four year mandatory minimum sentence, in the present case, would result in an "arbitrary and capricious" sentence. Trial Court Opinion, p. 8.
The language of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute for drug trafficking, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508, is quite specific and unambiguous and, in pertinent part, reads:
(a) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other act to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
* * * * * *
(3) A person who is convicted of violating section 13(a)(14) [sic] or (3) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Devise and Cosmetic Act where the controlled substance is ... [cocaine] ... shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and a fine as set forth in this subsection:
* * * * * *
(iii) upon the first conviction when the amount of the substance involved is at least 100 grams: four years in prison and a fine of $25,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity....
* * * * * *
(c) Mandatory sentencing.--There shall be no authority in any court to impose on an offender to which this section is applicable a lesser sentence than provided for herein or to place the offender on probation, parole, work release or prerelease or to suspend sentence. ...
(d) Appellate review.--If a sentencing court refuses to apply this section where applicable, the Commonwealth shall have the right to appellate review of the action of the sentencing court. The appellate court shall vacate the sentence in accordance with this section if it finds that the sentence imposed was in violation of the section.
* * * * * *
Instantly, the facts clearly reveal that appellee possessed with the intent to deliver in excess of 100 grams of cocaine. Therefore, it was error for the lower court, for whatever reason, to impose a sentence less than that mandated by § 7508(a)(3)(iii). The language of § 7508 evinces an unequivocal intent by the legislature that persons committing drug offenses be punished according to the minimum sentences set forth therein. Commonwealth v. Brown, 389 Pa.Super. 66, 71, 566 A.2d 619, 621 (1989).
Presently, the sentencing court placed its own assessment of the proper punishment before that of the legislature and, in so doing, clearly committed reversible error. 5 While, in general, sentencing is within the broad discretion of the trial court, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508 does not unconstitutionally infringe upon the sentencing prerogative of the judiciary, as it is the province of the legislature to prescribe punishment for crimes. Cf., Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334, 516 A.2d 1172 (1986) (). Accordingly, we vacate appellee's sentence and remand for resentencing in strict compliance with 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(iii). 6
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for imposition of sentence in accordance with 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(iii).
4 We note that the sentence for the possession offense should have been merged into the sentence for possession with intent to deliver. Commonwealth v. Johnston, 348 Pa.Super. 160, 501 A.2d 1119 (1985), affirmed 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (1987). Thus, the lower court imposed an illegal sentence in addition to its other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Eicher
...the crime of simple possession merges with the offense of possession with the intent to deliver. See Commonwealth v. Logan, 404 Pa.Super. 100, 103 n. 4, 590 A.2d 300, 301 n. 4 (1991), allocatur denied, 528 Pa. 622, 597 A.2d 1151 (1991) and Commonwealth v. Swavely, 382 Pa.Super. 59, 66 n. 3,......
-
Com. v. Smith
...the mandatory minimum sentence. See generally, Commonwealth v. Biddle, 411 Pa.Super. 210, 601 A.2d 313 (1991); Commonwealth v. Logan, 404 Pa.Super. 100, 590 A.2d 300 (1991), alloc. den., 528 Pa. 622, 597 A.2d 1151. At sentencing, however, the court refused to impose the mandatory minimum be......
-
Com. v. Arriaga
...A.2d 1107 (1987) (court can consider convictions which occur before enactment of enhanced sentencing law).4 In Commonwealth v. Logan, 404 Pa.Super. 100, 590 A.2d 300, 302 n. 6, appeal denied, 528 Pa. 622, 597 A.2d 1151 (1991), this court noted that granting the prosecution sole authority to......
-
Wilmer v. Johnson
...See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 413 Pa.Super. 482, 605 A.2d 825, appeal denied, 531 Pa. 652, 613 A.2d 557 (1992); Commonwealth v. Logan, 404 Pa.Super. 100, 590 A.2d 300, appeal denied, 528 Pa. 622, 597 A.2d 1151 (1991); Commonwealth v. Brown, 389 Pa.Super. 66, 566 A.2d 619 (1989). But eve......