Court Opinion

ID: 9727513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:41:19.389173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:39.626124
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, P.J.E.,
Concurring.
¶ 1 The author of the Opinion of the majority has, in usual fashion, undertaken a careful analysis and molded a perceptive rationale of position. I proceed to this statement since I am not so certain as the majority that appellant should be classified as a state prisoner.
¶ 2 The majority quite accurately echoes the final sentence of the sentencing judge: “I have deliberately worked this sentence, and I direct that it be served in the Lancaster County Prison, even though it is a state sentence. I feel that in that way perhaps visits can be arranged between you and your family.” (emphasis supplied)
¶ 3 On the other hand, the judge took pains to remove appellant from the automatic classification of appellant as a state prisoner when he crafted a maximum term of imprisonment of five years, less one day. The sentencing judge took such pains because the statute declares:
All persons sentenced to total or partial confinement for:
(4) maximum terms of five or more years shall be committed to the Bureau of Correction for confinement;
(5) maximum terms of two years or more but less than five years may be committed to the Bureau of Corrections for confinement or may be committed to a county prison within the jurisdiction of the court;
(6) maximum terms of less than two years shall be committed to a county prison ....
42 Pa.C.S. § 9762 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the sentencing judge precisely crafted a term that made appellant a county prisoner before labeling the term a state sentence. Since the sentencing judge did not file an opinion, we do not have the benefit of the explanation by the sentencing judge of the statement which attended the imposition of sentence, and so are left to address what some would consider an ambiguous statement of disposition. I am inclined to resolve that perceived uncertainty by concluding that the painstaking effort of the trial judge to craft a county prison sentence more distinctly and substantially reflects the substantive design of the sentencing judge than does the rather incidental reference to a state sentence.
¶ 4 Nonetheless, the insight and acumen of those judges who compose the majority are so keen that I opt not to dissent from their ruling, and instead proceed to concur in the result of the majority decision.