Court Opinion

ID: 9691832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:15:45.583354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:26.177616
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I agree with the decision of the Court in No. 339, in which the Court denied Wrona’s appeal from his conviction of manslaughter and the judgment of sentence thereon.
However, I disagree with the quashing of No. 321, which was appealed by the Commonwealth. In this case, the district attorney filed within thirty days, as permitted by the Act of June 1, 1959, P. L. 342, §1, 12 P.S. §1032, a “Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence.” In said petition, he averred that placing Wrona on probation for eight years was a clear abuse of discretion. I agree with the district attorney that the trial Judge should have given Wrona a prison sentence, but my belief on this point is of no moment.
I further believe that the Act of June 1,1959, supra, which was relied upon by the district attorney, is Constitutional, and that thereunder the Commonwealth may petition for a reconsideration of sentence and, if denied, may appeal from an adverse ruling of the trial *208Court only if it involves a pure question of law. See Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A. 2d 304; Commonwealth v. Melton, 402 Pa. 628, 168 A. 2d 328; Commonwealth v. Hartman, 383 Pa. 461, 119 A. 2d 211. However, I further believe that a trial Judge or Court en banc has the power to impose any legally authorized sentence it deems wise and just, provided it does not exceed the statutorily prescribed limits for a crime for which the defendant was convicted and is not Constitutionally impermissible. In other words, a district attorney has no right or power to challenge a sentence on the ground of an abuse of discretion or for any other reason or ground except, the ones hereinabove set forth.
For these reasons I would dismiss the Commonwealth’s appeal.