J - S03043 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v. SHAQUANN SMITH Appellee No. 2158 EDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 14 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 23 - CR - 0002553 - 2012 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2015 The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered July 14, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, granting Shaquann Smith relief under the Post - Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 The Commonwealth rais es one issue on appeal: “Did the PCRA court err when it held that [Smith]’s prior juvenile adjudications for Attempted Rape, Burglary, and Robbery are not considered felony convictions when sentencing a defendant for a plea to Persons Not to Possess a Fir earm?” Commonwealth’s Brief at 2. Based on the following, we affirm.

____________________________________________ 1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546.J - S03043 - 15

- 2 -

The underlying facts and procedural history are as follows. Smith was charged with persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a license, possessing an instrume nt of crime, and possessing an offensive weapon 2 in connection with an incident that occurred on November 18, 2011. On September 27, 2012, Smith entered an open plea to the charge of persons not to possess firearms, 3 having previously been adjudicated del inquent in 2008 as a result of his participation in a robbery. The offense was graded as a felony of the second degree pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(a.1)(1). 4 The Commonwealth withdrew the remaining

____________________________________________ 2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 907(a), and 908(a), respectively. 3 A crime under Section 6105 (a)(1) is defined as follows: A person who has been convicted of an offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). 4 Section 6105(a.1)(1) provides the penalty for committing the offense as fo llows: (1) A person convicted of a felony enumerated under subsection (b) or a felony under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or any equivalent Federal statute or equivalent statute of any other state, who violates subsection (a) commits a felony of the second degree. (Footnote Continued Next Page)J - S03043 - 15

- 3 -

charges. That same day, the trial court sentenced Smith a term of 30 to 72 months’ incarceration, plus four years of consecutive probation. Smith did not file a direct appeal, but did file a timely pro se PCRA petition on September 18, 2013. The court appointed counsel, who subsequently filed a petition to wi thdraw, and included therein a no - merit letter under Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ). The PCRA court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and entered a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of intent to dismiss the petition without a hearing on April 2, 2014. Thereafter, on May 12, 2014, the PCRA court vacated its April 2, 2014, Rule 907 “intent to dismiss” order and instructed defense counsel to file an amended PCRA petition within 20 days of the order. Counsel filed an amended petition on May 22, 2014, based on this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Hale , 85 A.3d 570 (Pa. Super. 2014). Pursuant to Hale , Smith argued that his conviction should have been graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree because his prior juvenile adjudications were not considered predicate convictions under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(b), which would qualify him for the higher grading. The PCRA court agreed and, on July 14, 2014, granted his amended petition, vacated the sentence, and (Footnote Continued)
_______________________ 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a.1)(1).J - S03043 - 15

- 4 -

ordered a new sentencing hearing. The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal. In its sole issue, the Commonwealth complains the PCRA erred in findi ng that the offense to which Smith plead guilty was erroneously designated a second - degree felony, resulting in an illegal sentence. 5 Specifically, the Commonwealth contends the court’s reliance on Hale is misplaced because Hale misconstrues the plain lan guage of Section 6105 as to whether adjudications should be considered convictions for purposes of grading. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 6 - 12. Moreover, the Commonwealth asserts the PCRA court, and the Hale Court, failed to follow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Baker, 614 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1992), which held that based on the principles of individualized sentencing, juvenile adjudications could be considered “convictions” for sentencing purposes. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 13 - 16.

“ Our standard of review of the PCRA court’s grant of relief is clear: we examine whether the court’s findings are supported by the record and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Williams , 105 A.3d 1234, 1239 (Pa. 2 014) (citation omitted).

____________________________________________ 5 “‘A claim that the court improperly graded an offense for sentencing purposes implicates the legality of a sentence.’” Commonwealth v. Mendoza , 71 A.3d 1023, 1027 (Pa. Super. 2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Pantalion , 957 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008).J - S03043 - 15

- 5 -

Initially, we note the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal in Hale to address this exact issue: Did the Superior Court err, in a published decision, by contradicting this Court's controlling precedent h olding that prior adjudications of delinquency are relevant at sentencing? Commonwealth v. Hale , __ A.3d. __, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 1623 [ 100 EAL 2014 ] (Pa. July 2, 2014). We recognize this area of our jurisprudence has been called into question. Nevertheless, we are bound by stare decisis to adhere to the law in its current state. See Commonwealth v. Brigidi, 6 A.3d 995, 1001 (Pa. 2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Crowley, 605 A.2d 1256, 1257 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“precedent ( stare decisis ) requires us to adhere to a ruling of this Court until it is reversed either by our Supreme Court or on en banc panel of Superior Court”). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well - reasoned opinion of the Honor able James P. Bradley, we conclude the Commonwealth’s argument merits no relief. The PCRA court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. See PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2014, at 2 - 8 (determining (1) Hale is controlli ng and held that (a) consistent with the technical and popular meaning of a conviction, juvenile adjudications are notJ - S03043 - 15

- 6 -

generally considered convictions, 6 (b) the legislature recognized the distinction between conviction and juvenile adjudication in certain subsections of Section 6105, 7 (c) pursuant to the language in Section 6105, a “prior juvenile adjudication is not a disqualifying prior conviction that raises the grade of a conviction for possessing a firearm from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a s econd degree felony;” 8 and (d) the default grading provision for firearms offenses as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6119 is applicable and pursuant to that section, where the disqualifying prior conviction is a juvenile adjudication, the perpetrator is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor; and (2) as explained in Hale , Baker is not applicable because that matter concerned whether a juvenile adjudication may be considered by the court when fashioning an appropriate sentence within a statutory maximum or grade an d did not discuss the applicability of the adjudication to an increase of the grading). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the PCRA court’s opinion. Order affirmed.

____________________________________________ 6 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6354(a)(“An order of disposition or other adjudication in a proceeding under this chapter is not a conviction of crime[.]”). 7 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6501(c)(7 - 8). 8 PCRA Court Opinion, 8/4/2014, at 6.J - S03043 - 15

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 5/26/2015At sentencing this off e ns e w a s d e s ig nat ed a fe l on y o f the second deg ree an d a s e ntence of 

### tt-9· : 

# u W\1 

# s- ~nv ttoi sentence was not n e go t iat ed, the Common we a l th a gree d t o wi t h d raw the rema i ning c harges
. d e linquent i n 2008 as a resu l t of h i s pa rt icipation in a rob bery
. Al t ho u gh th e l e ngth of his us e , manufact u re , control, sell o r transf er fi re arms, havi n g p rev i ousl y been adjudi c ate d fire arm i n qu e st i on in v i olation of Se ction 6105 of th e Crim e s C o d e , P e rs on s no t to po s sess , occurred on Nov e mbe r 18, 20 1 1. On Se p tem b er 2 7 , 2012 h e pied g uilty to p oss es sing th e possessing a n offen s ive w ea p on (18 P a . CS

. A
. § 908(A ) ) in connect ion wi t h an incid e n t t hat (18 Pa
. CS

. A. § 6106(A)(l)), possessin g an instru me nt of crim e (1 8 Pa
. C.S

. A. § 907 ( A)) and shotgun in violation of 1 8 Pa
. C.S

. A. §6105(A)(1), firearm s not to be carr i e d wit h out a li c e ns e P e titioner, Shaquann Sm i th , was charged with p ossess i ng a 1 2 Gau ge Re mi ng ton FI L E D : 

### B radley , J
. 

### OPINION . - - : , ~ . . 

### ~ :' D
. Da nie l Woo dy, Esquire , on be h alf of t he C om m o n we alth 

### S c ott D
. Gallow ay , on behalf o f the Petitioner

S H A Q UA NN S M IT H 

### v s . CP-23 ~C R-2 55 3 - 2 01 2 CO MMONW E ALTH O F PEN N S YLVAN I A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF D E LAWAR E 

### C OUNTY , P EN N S YLVANIA CR I MI N AL 

### D IVIS I ON Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM2

1 S e cti on 95 4 3 ( a) ( 2) (vif) provides relie f to a Pe tit io n e r where th e se n te n ce i m pose d is greate r tha n t he lawf u l maxim u m. See 42 P a .C.S

. A
. § 954 3 (a){ 2 )(vii). P e tition e r pl e ad guilty wa s e rron eo u s ly d e s i gnated a s e co nd d e gree fe l o n y , re n d e ri ng t h e s e nt e nc e imposed i ll egal. 1 that th e P CRA co u rt e rred w h e n it con c l u ded th at at sen t e n c i ng t he off ens e to wh ic h In its C oncis e Stat e ment o f Er ro rs C o mpl a in ed of on Ap pe al t he Comm o n w ealth c laim s C o mm o n w ealth h e re app e a l s fro m that Ord e r , n eces si t atin g t h is Opin io n . · 14 , 2014 PCRA re li ef was granted and a n e w s e nt e ncin g hearing wa s sc h e du le d
. T h e genu i ne i s s ues of mat e rial f act exi st e d an d t h at t h e Pet ition e r w as e ntitled to relief
. On Jul y Comm o n we alth ' s re s p ons e, and aft e r a rev i ew of the re co rd , th e C o urt concluded that no Aft e r con si d e ring t he all eg ati ons s et f o rth i n t he a m e nd e d p e t it ion an d t he R e lief Act P e tition " wa s fi l e d
. t o res pond and on June 25 , 2 0 1 4 th e " Co m mon wea l t h's An sw er to Amende d Post -C on v iction compli ed a n d fil e d an am e n d e d p e titi o n on May 2 2 , 20 14
. The Com m onwea l t h was direct ed couns e l was o rd e red t o fi l e an am e nd e d P CRA pe ti tion on P e t i t io ner ' s be hal f
. PC RA coun se l coun se l 's a ppli cation and gave P et i t ion e r n otice of i ts in te n t for d is m i s s the P CRA p e t i t io n w ithout a h e aring
. H oweve r, on M ay 2 , 2014 th e A pr il 2 n d O rd e r was vacat e d and PC RA P e ti t ion e r d i d n ot appea l from ju d gm e nt of s e nt ence . On S ep t em b er 1 8, 20 13 he fi l e d
a 

### pro se P C RA p et iti o n an d P C RA cou nse l was app oin t e d
. Ap p ointe d Co u nse l fil ed an app li cat i on to w ithd raw al on g wi th a " no-m e ri t" l e tt er and o n A p ril 2, 2 0 14 the Co urt g ran te d imp ose d. two and on e ha lf t o s ix years of i ncarcerati on to b e fo ll owe d b y fo u r years of probatio n was Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM3 (a
. 1) Penalty.-- (1) A person convicted of a felony enumerated under subsection (b) or a fe l ony under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No
. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or any equ ivalent Federal statute or equivalent statute of any othe r state, who violates subsection (a) commits a felony of the second degree
. 

## * * * (a) Offense defined.-- (1) A person who has been convicted ofan offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or wi t hout this Commonwealth, regardless of the l ength of sentence orwhose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c) shall not possess, use, contro l , sell, transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, contro l , sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this Commonwea l th. the grade of the offense to a second-degree felony pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A

. 6105(a.1)(1). On appea l the defendant argued that a juvenile adjudication did not ra i se the grade of this offense to a second degree felony. Rathe r , the default grad i ng provision fo r firearm offenses that is set forth in Section 6119 is applicable and p u rsuant to that section a person who possesses a firearm in violation of Section 6501 where the disqualifying prior conviction is a juvenile adjudication is gui l ty of a misdemeanor of the first degree
. Section 6501, Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfe r firearms, provides in pertinent part: In Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570 (Pa
. Super

. 2014) the defendant was found guilty of possessing a handgun although a prio r juvenile adjudicatio n prohibited him from possess i ng a firearm
. He was sentenced to five to ten years of incarceration on th i s charge based on the trial court's determination that the defendant's prior juveni l e adjudication raised Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM4 (b) Enumera te d offenses.--The follo w ing offenses shall apply to subsection (a) : Section 908 ( relatin g to proh i bited o ffen s i ve weapon s )
. Sect1on 911 (relat i ng t o cor r upt organ i zations). S e cti o n 912 (re l ating to possession of weapon o n sc h ool property)
. S e ct i on 2502 (relat i ng to m u rd e r)
. Section 2503 (re l ati n g to volunta ry ma n s l aughter)
. S e ction 2504 (relating t o i n voluntary manslaughter) i f the offen s e is bas e d on the reckless u s e of a firearm
. Se ction 2702 (relating t o aggravated assau l t)
. Section 2703 (relating to assault by p ri son e r)
. Section 2704 (relat i ng to assau l t by life pri s oner)
.

. Section 2709
. 1 ( relating to stalking)
. S e ction 2716 (re l ating to weapons of m ass de st ruct ion)
. Section 2901 ( re l ating to k idnapping)
. Sect i on 2902 (relating to un l awful res t ra i nt)
. Sect i on 29 1 0 (relat i ng to l uri n g a ch il d i nto a motor ve hicle or s t r ucture). Section 312 1 (re l ati ng to rape). Sectio n 3 1 23 (relati n g to i nvo l u n tary deviate s exua l intercourse)
. Sectio n 3125 (re l ati n g to aggravated ind e cent assau l t). S e ction 3301 ( relat i ng to arson and relat e d off e n s es)
. S ection 3 3 02 (re l at i ng to ca u s i ng or r iski n g cata st rophe)
. S e ction 3502 (re lating to b urg l ary)
. S e ction 3503 (relating to criminal trespass) if the offen s e is gra de d a fe l ony of the s e cond degree or h i gher
. Section 3701 (rel ati n g to ro bb ery )
. Section 3702 ( relating to robbery of motor veh i cle )
. S e ction 392 1 (relat i ng to theft by unlawf u l takin g or d isposition) u pon convict i on of t h e se con d fel ony off e ns e. Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM(8) A person w h o was adjud i cated delinque n t by a co u rt pursuant t o 42

Pa.C.S. § 6341 or under a n y equivalent Fe d eral statu t e or statute of any other state as a resu l t of conduct which if committed by an adult would constitute an 5 

## * * * Section 3923 (re l ating to t heft 

### by extortion) when the offense is accompa n ied by t hreat s of violence
. Section 3925 (relating to re ce i ving s t ole n property) upon co n victio n of the second felo n y offense. Sect io n 4906 (re l ating to false rep o rts to law e n forcement authori t ies) i f the fi ct it ious report i nvolved the t heft of a firearm as provided in sect i on 4906( c )( 2 )
. Secti on 4912 (relat ing to im p e rsonating a public servant) if t he person is i mperso n at ing a law e n forcement officer
. S ection 4952 (re l at ing to i nti midat ion of witnesses or vict i ms)
. S ect io n 4953 (re l ati ng t o reta li at ion aga i n st w i tness, victim or party). Secti on 512 1 (relat i ng to esca p e)
. Section 5122 (re l ating to we a pons o r impleme n ts for escape)
. Sect i on 5 501(3) (relat i ng t o riot). Secti on 5515 ( re lati n g to pro h ibiti n g o f paramilitary t ra in i ng)
. Sect i o n 5516 (relating t o f acs i m il e weapo n s of mass destructio n )
. Secti o n 6110
. 1 ( relating to p ossess i o n of fi rear m 

### by m i nor). Secti on 6301 (re l ati ng to cor ru pt i on of mino rs)
. Sect io n 6302 (relating to sa l e o r l ease of weapons and explos i ves). Any offe n se equ i vale n t to any of t he above-enumerated off enses under the prior l aws of t h is Commonwealt h o r any offe n se equ iva l ent to any of t h e a b ove-e n umerat e d off en s e s under the statutes o f any othe r state or of t he Uni te d S t ates. (c) Other persons. -In addition to any person who has been convicted of any offense listed under subsection (b ), the follow! ng persons shall be subject to the prohibition ofsubsection (a) : Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM6

the first deqree." The Common w ealth , s ug g ests , as did t h e appellee in Ha l e, t hat Co m monwe a lt h v . Bake r , 614 A.2d 663 (Pa
. 1992) dict ate s a d iffere nt re su l t. In Bake r, our S u pre m e Cou rt hel d that, although the Juvenile Act i n effe ct at the time p rovid e d ju ve n il e di sp osit i ons w e re not "convictions " and that a " dispos i tion in a juven ile delin q u e ncy proc eed i n g could n ot be u s ed again st the p e rso n in an y cou rt o t h e r th a n a juvenil e h e a ri n g, ex cept for d i s p ositional degree to a s econd - degre e f e lon y . Se e 1 8 Pa.C.S

. A. § 6119, Violati o n pe n a lty , " Except as o t herw is e s pecifically prov i d ed, an off e n s e under t h i s s ubchapter co nst i tut es a mi s d e mean o r of that ra is e s the gra d e of a convict io n for possessing a firearm fro m a m i sdem e anor of t h e first be superfluous. Accordingly , a p r i or juvenil e adj u dication is not a di squa l i fyi ng prior con vi ction of a convict i on, juve n ile a djudications are ord i na ril y not co ns idered con vi ct i ons. " Id
. at 570
. The Court th e n turn e d to th e statut e its e lf a nd not e d that t he Ge neral Ass e mbl y recogni ze d thi s distinction by explicitly including subsection ( c)(8), noti n g that if a co n v icti on of an e numerated offens e i ncluded in s ubsection(b) subsum e d d e linqu e nt acts , s e ct i on ( c)(8) w ould In H ale, s up ra th e Court con s idered the p l ai n l a nguage of Se ct i on 6501 to " asce rtai n and e ffectuate the intention of the Gen e ral Ass embly," 85 A .3d at 57 0. Aft er revi ew ing relevant case law it concluded that "[c] on sist ent with b oth the t e chn i ca l and p o pular meaning offen s e enumerate d in sub s ect ion ( b ) wit h the exce ption of thos e c r i m es s e t forth i n paragrap h ( 7 ). This p rohibi tio n s h all te r minate 15 years after t h e las t a pplicabl e delinqu e n t adjud i cation or upon the person rea c hing the age of 30 , w hich ever i s e arli e r . 1 8 Pa
. CS.A.§ 6501(empha s i s a d ded). Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM7

2 The S u perio r C ourt not ed, t h at after Baker, the Ju ve n ile Act was a me nded to p rov i de t h at a j uveni le adj ud i cat i on " could be used aga i n st [ a chil d] , " i n a crim i na l proc ee d i n g , if th e c h il d wa s adjud icated deli n q u ent for a n offense, t h e evidence of which would b e admi s si b le if committe d by an ad u l t. " 85 A. 3 d at 5 84
. S

. T. S. , Jr
. 7 6 A. 3 d 2 4 , 44 (P a.Sup er . 201 3 ) 

### citin_g S o rbe r v. A m e ri ca n Moto ri sts In s. Co., 68 0 A
. 2d 8 81 , 882 ( P a. Su p e r . 1 99 6 ) ("hol d ing th at even th oug h pet iti on fo r a l l owa nce o f do e s no t rend e r the Sup e rior C o u rt's d ec i si on n o n- bi n d ing in t h e l owe r court. See 

### M · I n re C ommon w eal t h v. H a l e, 2 5 EAP 2 014 (P e ti t i on f o r All owa nce o f App ea l gran te d , Ju ly 2, 2014) Th e fa ct that o u r Sup re m e C.o urt will conside r C o mmo nwea l t h 's appea l i n H ale, see Id
. at 5 85
. Ce rtain l y , Ba ke r an d th e s ubs e qu e nt am e ndm e nt of th e J u venil e Act all ow for a sentenci n g ju dg e to co n si de r A ppe ll an t' s p r ior adj udicat i on when se n t e nci n g A p pell a n t w i thi n a rang e o f sen ten ce s falli n g i n t h e approp riate g radi n g . Th e y do not, how ever , pe rmi t the j udg e t o d i s rega rd th e la ngu a g e of th e pers ons- no t - to pos s ess statu te , re nd e r po rtio ns o f t hat stat ute s urp l u sa ge , a nd i n c rease the grad i ng of t he off e ns e to a s e cond - degre e fel ony. H ere, after Bak e r, th e G e n era l Ass emb ly ex press l y dis t i ng u is h e d betw een a p ers on " con victed of a ny o ff e n se li ste d u nd e r su bse ctio n (b)," a nd an in divi d u a l adju d icated d el i nquen t. 1 8 P a .C.S. § 6105( c)
. It would be in congruo u s to i n te rpret the phra se "con v icted " i n subs e ct i o n ( a . 1)( 1 ) d i ffe re n t l y th a n i n s u bs e ct io n (c ) of th e s am e statu te
. S e e 1 P a . C.S

. § 1932 (a)(b) (' [ s]tatut es o r parts o f stat ute s are in pa r i m ate ri a wh e n th ey rel ate to th e sam e p e rson s or t h i ng s or t o t h e sam e class o f p ers on s or th ing s" and " [s ] tatu t es in p ar i m ate r ia sh all be co ns tr ued togethe r , if poss i b l e, as o n e stat u t e.")
. p ossess statu e , a p r i or adju d ication d oes not i nc re a se th e grade o f the o ff en se: m axi m u m or grad e. H oweve r , i n l i g h t of th e exp ressed p rovi s i ons of t h e perso n- no t - to co nsid e re d by th e court when i t is fa s h i o ni ng an appropr i ate sent en ce wit hin a statu t o ry H al e and exp lai ne d that pu rs u a n t to Bake r and its prog e ny , a juve nil e adjud icatio n m ay b e s how a h istory of v i olen t f elony convict i ons . " Th e Supe r io r Court rej ecte d this a rgu m ent in a dj u di cat i o ns a re adm issi ble as ev id e n ce at th e sen t enc ing p hase of a d e ath pen a l ty case to proce e ding s aft e r a f e l o ny convi ct i on fo r pu rp o se s o f a p res e n te n ce report" "j u venH e Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM8 J. BY T HE COU RT: app e al wa s pe n ding be fo re the Pe n nsyl vani a Su p reme Cou rt, d ecisio n re m ain e d b indi n g pre ce d en t a s long a s the de c is i o n h ad not be en ov erturned by our Su preme Co u rt " )
. The iss u e c u r re nt l y b e fore th e Su p re m e Co u rt in Ha le ha s bee n stat e d as f ollo ws : "D id t he S uperior C o urt err , in a publi s hed de c is i on , b y co n t rad ict ing this C o urt ' s co n t rolling pre ce dent holding that prior adjud i cat i ons of d e linquency are re l evan t at s e nt e ncing ?" Acce pting th e prin ci pl e that p rior adjud ic at i on s are re leva n t w h en d et er m i n i ng a n app ro priate s en t en ce withi n the statutory max imum authori ze d for a pa rti cular off ens e of a g ive n gra d e, it is n ot a s th e Common w ealth sug g ests , a fore go ne co nclu si o n t h at the Sup e rior C ou rt e rre d when it d e termined that th e pla i n language of Se cti o n 610 5 do e s n ot all ow for an i n c re ase in th e grade of this off e nse based o n a pr i or ju venile adju d i cati o n . In light of th e fo re go i ng , it is re s p ectfu lly submitted that th e Ord e r Jul y 1 4, 2014 granting Petitioner PCRA re lief from the illegal s e n te nc e impo s ed in th e above m att er should b e affirm e d
. Circulated 04/30/2015 03:49 PM