Court Opinion

ID: 9762988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:34:58.582982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:08.835804
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with the majority that the language of the statute at issue, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(ii), is clear and unambiguous. I find the majority’s analysis to be quite strained, particularly as the legisla*353ture has, since the commencement of this litigation, amended the statute to correct the very problem at issue.1
At the time appellant was sentenced for his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, the statute providing for mandatory imprisonment read as follows:
(a) General rule. — Notwithstanding any other provisions of this or any other act to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: ...
(3) A person who is convicted of violating section 13(a)(14) or (30) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act where the controlled substance is coca leaves or is any salt, compound, derivative or preparation of coca leaves or is any salt, compound, derivative or preparation which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these substances or is any mixture containing any of these substances except decocainized coca leaves or extracts of coca leaves which (extracts) do not contain cocaine orecgonine shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and a fine as set forth in this subsection: ...
(ii) upon the first conviction when the amount of the substance involved is at least ten grams and less than 100 grams; three years in prison and a fine of $15,000 ... (emphasis added)
Contrary to the view expressed in the majority opinion, Subsection (3), as set forth above, does not include a mixture of cocaine and any other matter other than cocaine. Rather, when the term “mixture” is used in this subsection it refers to a “mixture containing any of these substances,” namely, as spelled out in the subsection itself: “coca leaves ... or any salt, compound, derivative or preparation of coca leaves or ... any salt, compound, derivative or preparation which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these substances.... ”
In the instant case, the Commonwealth established that the appellant was in possession of a white powder with a total *354weight of 18.77 grams containing cocaine and Manitol. Manitol is not a substance as spelled out in the above definition of “mixture.” Thus, I cannot agree with the conclusion of the majority, that the reference to “substance” as clearly delineated in the statute was meant to include a “mixture” of a narcotic and non-narcotic substance, as seized herein.
Nor can I agree with the majority, that by amending the statute to specifically include the term “mixture,” the legislature has merely restated that the focus of the statute was always upon the weight of the “mixture” as opposed to the weight of the controlled “substance” for sentencing purposes. Rather, I believe the legislature in amending the statute acknowledged its original omission on this point. “It is a rule of statutory construction that a change in the language of a statute ordinarily indicates a change in legislative intent.” Masland v. Bachman, 473 Pa. 280, 289, 374 A.2d 517, 521 (1977). I find it more reasonable to conclude that the legislature, in light of the multitude of controversial litigation on this question revised the statute to now include the term “mixture” as such was not within the scope of the original Act.
Further, as the statute in question is penal in nature it must be strictly construed with all liberal interpretations in favor of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Wooten, 519 Pa. 45, 545 A.2d 876 (1988). I believe the majority, in its zeal to uphold the statute at issue, is applying the legislative amendment to this penal provision retroactively. I cannot disregard the actual words of the statute, in an attempt to achieve a desired result.
I respectfully dissent.
-Pa. -, 613 A.2d 533 (1992).

. Appellant herein was sentenced under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(h) on December 18, 1989. The statute was amended on December 19, 1990, and is now codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508(a)(3)(h).