Court Opinion

ID: 9691843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:18:33.16852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:26.851385
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
McEWEN, P.J.E.:
¶ 1 The author of the majority Opinion, in his usual astute fashion, reveals a careful analysis and presents a perceptive expression of rationale in support of its decision that is consistent with precedent generally, and, specifically, with the recent decision of this Court in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 774, 968 A.2d 1280 (2009). Therefore, I join in the ruling to affirm the judgment of sentence.
¶2 However, may I very respectfully note, that in my view a stipulated item of evidence remains mere “evidence” until accepted by the jury.1 Thus, the preferred procedure, and one more consistent with the spirit of the guidance provided by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), would be to have the jury instructed on, and required to find, all of the “additional facts” that are necessary to support the imposition of a statutorily mandated increased sentence.
¶ 3 In any event I would, on this record, affirm the judgment of sentence.

. See: Commonwealth v. Kearns, 907 A.2d 649, 658 (Pa.Super.2006).