# Commonwealth v. Brown

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 20, 1991 · 402 Pa. Super. 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736087

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Darryl BROWN
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 20, 1991
- **Citations:** 402 Pa. Super. 369; 587 A.2d 6; 1991 Pa. Super. LEXIS 417
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sole
- **Judges:** Sole, Popovich, Brosky
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736087

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736087. Public record. Not legal advice.