Opinion

Commonwealth v. Brown

  • 402 Pa. Super. 369
  • 587 A.2d 6
  • 1991 Pa. Super. LEXIS 417
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 20, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Sole
On the bench
Sole, Popovich, Brosky
Cited by
21 cases

holding that offense gravity score and deadly weapon enhancement involve discretionary aspects of sentencing

How later courts described this case

  • holding that offense gravity score and deadly weapon enhancement involve discretionary aspects of sentencing
  • holding that a saw used to stab a victim was a deadly weapon
  • Commonwealth challenged discretionary aspects of sentencing by claiming that sentencing court failed to apply deadly weapon enhancement
  • saw used to stab victim was a deadly weapon

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DEL SOLE, Judge,

dissenting.

I would affirm the trial court’s sentence for the reasons stated in its opinion. The trial judge fashioned a sentence so the defendant received county time. This was important to insure continual psychiatric therapy. A review of the pre-sentence report supports this consideration. While I agree with the Majority that consideration of Weapon Enhancement is appropriate where the Aggravated Assault conviction is based upon 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), I do not believe that remand is necessary.

Enhancement only requires that the trial judge add to the Guideline range not that a specific additional period of incarceration be imposed. Here the Court sought to establish a specific sentencing objective, namely continuation of *376 therapy. This is in keeping with the pre-sentence report recommendations. Also, the trial judge points out that the sentence has been enhanced by imposition of a consecutive sentence for the Possession of an Instrument of Crime conviction. It is important to remember that the instrumentality involved in the case, a dry wall saw, is not by nature an instrument of crime. It did not become one until it was used in the assault. I see no reason to remand for resentencing since the trial judge can impose the same sentence to achieve the result intended.

Since I believe that the sentence imposed by the trial court does not evidence any abuse of discretion and in fact has legitimate and proper reasons to support its imposition, I would affirm.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.