Case Title: Com. v. Woodlyn

Citation: 345 Pa. Super. 200, 497 A.2d 1374

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1985-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
345 Pa. Superior Ct. 200 (1985) 497 A.2d 1374 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Donald WOODLYN. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 12, 1985. Filed September 6, 1985. *201 Joanne F. Tyler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for appellee. Steven J. Cooperstein, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant. Before SPAETH, President Judge, and JOHNSON and SHOYER[*], JJ. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from judgment of sentence for aggravated assault. The Commonwealth argues that the sentencing court erred in holding the evidence insufficient to find that appellant "visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense" within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712, and in therefore refusing to impose the minimum sentence mandated by that section. We agree and accordingly vacate the sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence in accordance with that section. On September 27, 1982, after an argument, appellant shot the victim in the abdomen. The victim testified that the shooting occurred as follows: Appellant rode his bicycle to *202 within eight feet of him. Remaining on the bicycle, appellant reached into his pocket. When he withdrew his hand, it was in the shape of a fist with the knuckles visible. The victim heard a "bang," saw smoke, and felt what proved to be the impact of a bullet. However, he never saw the gun. N.T. 8/15/83 at 22, 30. Section 9712, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 provides: In Commonwealth v. Healey, 343 Pa.Super. 323, 494 A.2d 869 (1985), we construed the meaning of the statutory language "visibly possessed a firearm." In that case, the trial court found the evidence insufficient to support the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence where appellant invited the victim to his apartment, and, upon hearing his knock, fired a shotgun through the closed door. We vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding: Here, appellant's possession was undoubtedly "manifest[ed] in the process of the crime" by the smoke, the sound of gunfire, and, of course, the gunshot wound. Accordingly, we find that he "visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense" within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712. See Commonwealth v. Healey, supra. Judgment of sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. [*] The Honorable Kendall H. SHOYER, Senior Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, is sitting by designation.