Court Opinion

ID: 9698120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:42:32.085131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.513472
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring.
The defendant in Commonwealth v. Jones, 413 Pa.Super. 482, 605 A.2d 825, alloc. denied, 531 Pa. 652, 613 A.2d 557 (1992), like Thomas Carroll, was convicted of both possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver. The subsequent facts of Jones differ significantly from those of the instant case, however. The trial court in Jones decided after conviction to alter its factual findings, declaring that some of the drugs had not actually been possessed. In the instant ease, the trial court made additional findings of fact during the sentencing phase.
We declared in Jones that when applying the mandatory sentencing guidelines to the crime of possession with intent to deliver, the sentencing court need only consider the quantity of drugs possessed. Id. at 485, 605 A.2d at 827. Because this rule of law may appear to conflict with the rule ordered by the Court today, I write separately only to note that the rule in Jones applies to a factual situation much different than the one we consider today.