Com. v. Stevenson
Decision Date | 26 May 2004 |
Citation | 850 A.2d 1268 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Keith STEVENSON, Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Sally K. Kaye, Assistant District Attorney and Michael W. Steily, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Carole M. Owen, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before: DEL SOLE, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, GANTMAN, McCAFFERY, and PANELLA, JJ.
OPINION BY LALLY-GREEN, J.
¶ 1 The Commonwealth challenges the judgment of sentence imposed on Appellee, Keith Stevenson, following Stevenson's guilty plea to third-degree murder and aggravated assault. The sentence included a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of "total confinement" for offenses committed with a firearm. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712. The court also granted Stevenson credit for all time served, including time spent on house arrest in a home electronic monitoring program.
¶ 2 The Commonwealth argues that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it granted credit for time served on house arrest, because such a sentence ultimately does not result in five years of "total confinement." We conclude that since the statutory term "total confinement" means imprisonment, no credit is to be given for time spent in a home monitoring program. Thus, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.
¶ 3 The stipulation of facts to which all parties agreed is as follows:
5. That on August 25, 2000, after an evidentiary hearing, the Honorable David R. Cashman granted a new trial for [Stevenson] and granted [Stevenson] a nominal bond with the condition that he be released on house arrest with electronic monitoring pending his new trial;
Stipulation of Facts, 10/22/2001, at 1-3. This appeal followed.1
¶4 The Commonwealth raises one issue on appeal:
I. Whether the trial court incorrectly applied the law in granting Stevenson credit for time served in house arrest when the mandatory statute that applied in this case called for "total confinement"?
¶ 5 The Commonwealth argues that the court effectively eviscerated the "total confinement" aspect of the mandatory minimum sentence by granting credit for time served on house arrest. This challenge implicates the legality of the sentence. See, Commonwealth v. Bradley, 575 Pa. 141, 834 A.2d 1127, 1131 (2003)
; Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa.Super.2001) ( ); cf., Commonwealth v. Tout-Puissant, 823 A.2d 186, 188 (Pa.Super.2003) ( ). Commonwealth v. Kinney, 777 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa.Super.2001). In evaluating a trial court's application of a statute, our standard of review is plenary and is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law. Bradley, 834 A.2d at 1131 n. 2.
¶ 6 The sole issue for our determination is whether a defendant can receive any credit for time served in an electronic home monitoring program under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9760 against a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712. Section 9760 addresses credit for time served and provides:
§ 9760. Credit for time served
After reviewing the information submitted under section 9737 ( ) the court shall give credit as follows:
(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based. Credit shall include credit for time spent in custody prior to trial, during trial, pending sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.
¶ 7 Section 9712 governs mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a firearm and provides in pertinent part: § 9712. Sentences for offenses committed with firearms:
(a) Mandatory sentence.—Except as provided under section 9716 ( ), any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section 9714(g) ( ), shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, 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. Such persons shall not be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712(a), (c) (emphasis added).
¶ 8 As the above reflects, Section 9760 provides for credit for time served "against the maximum term and any minimum term ... for all time spent in custody." On the other hand, Section 9712 provides for a mandatory sentence of "at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary."
¶ 9 The term "total confinement" is not explicitly defined within the Sentencing Code. In Commonwealth v. Sematis, 382 Pa.Super. 569, 555 A.2d 1347 (1989), however, this Court held that "total confinement" means confinement in a correctional institution. In Sematis, the defendant pled guilty but mentally ill to kidnapping while in visible possession of a firearm. The defendant argued that the trial court should have the discretion to sentence him to involuntary mental health treatment. This Court disagreed, and reasoned as follows:
The Sentencing Code mandates that:
All persons sentenced to total or partial confinement for:
. Here, appellant pled guilty to kidnapping while in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years incarceration....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Simmons
......An illegal sentence must be vacated." Commonwealth v. Stevenson , 850 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( en banc ) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc. , 211 A.3d 875, 889–90 ...2000). When the founders first adopted the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, parole, as a penological expedient, did not exist. Com. ex rel. Banks v. Cain, 345 Pa. 581, 28 A.2d 897, 899 (1942). The system of parole initially appeared in America in the Elmira Reformatory, opened ......
-
Com. v. Fowler
...Id. at 634, 874 A.2d at 18. ¶ 25 "Intermediate punishment is an alternative to total confinement." Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 850 A.2d 1268, 1272 (Pa.Super.2004) (en banc) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(a); Commonwealth v. Wegley, 574 Pa. 190, 191 n. 1, 829 A.2d 1148, 1149 n. 1 (2003)). Our Su......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Bowers
...sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated.” Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 850 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa.Super.2004) ( en banc ). “We can raise and review an illegal sentence sua sponte.” Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 992 A.2d 897, 903 (Pa.Super.201......
-
Com. v. Weimer
...murder is a cognizable offense. If it is not a cognizable offense, then Appellant's sentence is illegal. See Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 850 A.2d 1268 (Pa.Super.2004) (a sentence is illegal if no statutory authorization for the sentence exists); Commonwealth v. Shannon, 530 Pa. 279, 286, 608......