Court Opinion

ID: 9914239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 20:09:04.988878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:48.868387
License: Public Domain

J-S33009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ERIC RAYMOND GEORGE                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1500 WDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-43-CR-0000760-2021

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: December 29, 2023

       While the Majority decision contains thoughtful analysis of the issue

presented, I write separately to express my disagreement with the current

precedent in Commonwealth v. Northrip, 603 Pa. 544, 985 A.2d 734 (2009)

and Commonwealth v. Lites, 234 A.3d 806 (Pa.Super. 2020) which holds

that a trial court may not consider the underlying facts of a defendant’s prior

out-of-state conviction to determine whether it qualifies as an “equivalent

offense” of a crime of violence for the purpose of the recidivist sentencing

provisions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714.         Instead, the trial courts are

restricted to conduct a strict elemental analysis of the statutes in question.

       The record documents the factual basis of Appellant’s prior Wisconsin

robbery conviction in which Appellant along with a co-defendant aggressively

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33009-23

attacked a juvenile victim by choking him and repeatedly hitting him in the

chest and stomach until the victim gave the men his money.          If Appellant

committed the same conduct in Pennsylvania, he would have been criminally

liable for a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), which provides that

an individual is “guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he …

[t]hreatens another or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious

bodily injury” and is considered a “crime of violence” under Section 9714(g).1

       These circumstances demonstrate the limitations of the strict elemental

approach in which the trial court is precluded from considering the undisputed

facts underlying a defendant’s foreign conviction. See Northrip, 603 Pa. at

____________________________________________

1 This Court has clarified that:

       [a] conviction under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) is contingent upon the
       type of bodily harm threatened. See Commonwealth v. Ross,
       391 Pa.Super. 32, 570 A.2d 86, 87 (1990) (evidence sufficient to
       show appellant, by the use of an upraised knife, threatened the
       victim with serious bodily injury), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 644,
       593 A.2d 417 (1990). The Commonwealth need not prove a verbal
       utterance or threat to sustain a conviction under Section
       3701(a)(1)(ii). Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 914
       (Pa. Super. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). It is
       sufficient if the evidence demonstrates aggressive actions that
       threatened the victim's safety. Id. For the purposes of Section
       3701(a)(1)(ii), the proper focus is on the nature of the threat
       posed by an assailant and whether he reasonably placed a victim
       in fear of “immediate serious bodily injury.” Id. (citations
       omitted).

Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918, 923–24 (Pa.Super. 2018).

                                           -2-
J-S33009-23

561, 985 A.2d at 744 (Saylor, J., concurring).2 Appellant is excused from the

application of the recidivist statute because he committed his robbery in a

different state.

       The Wisconsin and Pennsylvania statutes prohibit the same conduct of

committing robbery with the use of force and seek to protect the public from

individuals who commit robberies with the use of force. Nevertheless, the

applicable precedent requires this Court to ignore the factual basis of

Appellant’s prior Wisconsin robbery conviction to conclude that such conviction

was not an equivalent offense to Pennsylvania robbery offenses deemed to be

crimes of violence by Section 9714(g).

       Accordingly, I concur in the result and encourage the Legislature

reexamine how the current statutory elemental analysis allows offenders with

multiple crimes of violence to escape recidivist sentencing provisions.

____________________________________________

2 Admittedly, other complex issues would arise if the trial courts were
permitted to consider the underlying facts of a prior foreign conviction for
recidivist sentencing purposes, including, inter alia, constitutional restraints
such as those arising under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120
S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S.
99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).

                                           -3-