Court Opinion

ID: 9692053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:38:30.524799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:30.125701
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.
¶ 1 I concur with the result in this case that the Commonwealth cannot circumvent the mandate of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317. Since the Commonwealth failed to present evidence that would trigger a mandatory sentence at the sentencing hearing, it can*501not accomplish this by filing a motion for modification of sentence if the trial judge refuses to entertain the motion. I note that since the trial judge has jurisdiction over a matter for thirty days following sentence, a trial judge in his or her discretion could vacate the sentence. In that case, there would be nothing to prevent a new sentencing hearing in which the Commonwealth would have the opportunity to present evidence that would trigger the mandatory.