Court Opinion

ID: 9749907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:03:11.466515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:59.720967
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting:
¶ 1 I join that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the sentences for statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors merge for sentencing purposes as to the crimes committed by Appellant Walter Smith.
¶ 2 However because I conclude that facts of the Gatling case involve more than one criminal act, I believe it is unnecessary to engage in a merger analysis in the Gatling case. As stated in the Majority opinion, Gatling told the child “to lie face down on the couch, climbed on top of her and rubbed his penis against her buttocks.” Majority Opinion at-. He then proceeded to have the child turn over “whereupon he pulled down her pants, then his own, and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her.” Id. The Majority concludes from these facts that Gatling committed “a single criminal act,” and with *86this conclusion I cannot agree. Gatling’s initial actions could support a conviction for corrupting the morals of a minor while his later actions, in which he turned the child over and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her, support a conviction of statutory sexual assault. Although the two events occurred only moments apart they were two separate criminal actions committed on this child. Because the same facts are not the basis to support the convictions, the merger question is inapplicable. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 538 Pa. 574, 650 A.2d 20 (1994).
¶ 3 HUDOCK, J., STEVENS, J., and ORIE MELVIN, J. join this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.