Court Opinion

ID: 9630548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:13:50.575277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:14.658610
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, P.J.,
Concurring and Dissenting:
¶ 1 I join in all but that portion of the Majority’s Opinion which affirms the application of the Sentencing Guidelines’ deadly weapon enhancement to Appellant’s use of a gun to kill a dog.
¶ 2 Unlike the Majority, I read the provision in question to proscribe the use of a weapon where its intended purpose is directed toward harming an individual, not an animal. No matter how much empathy one may have for an animal killed for no justifiable reason, I remain of the view that this provision was enacted to penalize someone for possessing or utilizing a deadly weapon intended to do harm to a person. There was no evidence presented in this case that any individual was placed at risk due to Appellant’s conduct. Because I believe the objective of the enhancement provision is to punish wrongs against humanity, and not nature or animals, I would remand this matter for resentencing without application of the deadly weapon enhancement.