Title: Com. v. Brown
Citation: 389 Pa. Super. 66, 566 A.2d 619
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 22, 1989

389 Pa. Superior Ct. 66 (1989) 566 A.2d 619 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Timothy BROWN. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 12, 1989. Filed November 22, 1989. *67 Deborah Fleisher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellant. Jeffrey P. Shander, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before OLSZEWSKI, DEL SOLE and JOHNSON, JJ. JOHNSON, Judge: The Commonwealth appeals the Order placing Timothy Brown on probation. In this case we find that a defendant is not eligible for probation pursuant to 35 P.S. § 780-117 (section 17) and must be sentenced in compliance with the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 (section 7508) where the defendant has committed a crime under 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(14, 30) involving the type and quantities of substances set forth in section 7508. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements. On October 11, 1988, a Philadelphia police officer observed Brown make two drug sales. Thereafter, Brown was arrested and charged with Knowingly or Intentionally Possessing a Controlled Substance, and with the Manufacture, Delivery or Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver a Controlled Substance. On November 1, 1988, the Commonwealth gave notice to the court that it intended to *68 proceed under the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements set forth in section 7508. On February 10, 1989, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to manufacture, delivery or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver in excess of two grams of cocaine. In addition, Brown demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that he had a drug dependency. The court accepted Brown's plea and placed him on a conditional three years' probation pursuant to section 17. The minimum sentencing term of one year imprisonment and the fine of $5,000.00 mandated by section 7508 were not imposed. The Commonwealth filed a Petition to Reconsider Section § 17 which was denied. The Commonwealth then appealed the order of probation pursuant to section 7508(d), which provides for appellate review of any sentence not in compliance with section 7508. On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following question: where the defendant pleads nolo contendere to violating 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Devise and Cosmetic Act, may the trial court circumvent the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of section 7508 by sentencing the defendant to probation under section 17. This is an issue of statutory interpretation. The section under which Brown was placed on probation, section 17, provides: Act of April 14, P.L. 233, No. 64 § 17, eff. June 14, 1972; [emphasis added]. The mandatory minimum sentencing provision, section 7508, provides: Act of March 25, 1988, P.L. 262, No. 31 § 13, eff. July 1, 1988; [emphasis added]. The language of section 7508 evinces an unequivocal intent by the legislature that persons committing the drug offenses set forth under section 7508 be punished according to the minimum sentences set forth in that section. We pay particular attention to the language under the subsection entitled mandatory sentencing declaring that section 17 is inapplicable when the defendant comes within the purview of section 7508 and the prelude to section 7508 declaring that this section applies notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other act to the contrary. Drawing from this language, both the trial court and Brown contend that the defendant does not come within the provisions of section 7508 unless he has been convicted and therefore, where the defendant has not been convicted, a section 17 disposition is still appropriate. The trial court and Brown's arguments misapprehend the meaning of the words "to which the section applies." Section 7508(c) must be read in light of the entire statute, particularly section 7508(b). The penalties set forth in section 7508 depend upon the type and amount of the substance involved. Therefore, section 7508(b) requires that the trial court find by a preponderance of the evidence that this section is applicable, meaning there must be a finding that the substance *72 involved is of the type and quantity sought to be punished under the statute. Thus, where section 7508(c) uses the language "to which this section applies" it refers not to whether the offender has been convicted, but rather, to whether the offender has committed an offense involving the type and amounts of substance set forth under that section. Applying this interpretation, we conclude that section 7508 and section 17 are irreconcilable. Section 7508 removes from the trial court the discretion to place an offender on probation where the offender has committed the offenses set forth in section 7508. The provisions of 1 Pa.C.S. § 1936 set forth the rule of construction where two statutes may not both be given effect: Section 17 was enacted April 14, 1972 whereas section 7508 was enacted almost sixteen years later on March 25, 1988. Accordingly, section 7508 as the later enacted statute overrides section 17 to the extent that the statutes overlap. Our determination that section 7508 overrides section 17 does not amount to an implied repeal of section 17. By its own terms, section 7508 will displace section 17 only where the defendant comes within section 7508: where the defendant has committed an offense under 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(14, 30) involving the type and quantities of illicit substances set forth in section 7508. Persons committing drug offenses involving substances of a different type or of lesser quantities than those set forth in section 7508 do not come within this section and are not, by virtue of this section, denied a section 17 disposition. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for sentencing consistent with the minimum sentencing requirements. Order vacated and case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.