Court Opinion

ID: 9634749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:22:23.961697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:09.616391
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Section 9714(b)(2) clearly and unambiguously provides that:
The previous conviction occurred within seven years of the date of the commission of the instant offense, except that any time during which the offender was incarcerated in any penitentiary, prison or other place of detention shall not be considered in computing the relevant seven-year period. Convictions for other offenses arising from the same crimi*303nal episode as the instant offense shall not be considered previous convictions for the purpose of this section. A previous conviction shall include any conviction, whether or not litigation is pending concerning that conviction.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 (emphasis added). Thus, if the previous conviction occurred at any time “within seven years of the date of the commission of the instant offense,” the mandatory minimum sentencing statute applies.
The majority, however, disregards the clear and unambiguous letter of the law under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, which is prohibited by the rules of statutory construction. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b). In effect, by construing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(b)(2) to mean “within seven years prior to the date of the commission of the instant offense,” the majority has usurped the power of the legislature and rewritten the statute, ignoring the purpose of the statute which is to protect society from repeat violent offenders (in this case, a multiple rapist).
Consequently, the undeniable result of the majority’s interpretation is that defendants, such as appellee, are free to engage in the commission of multiple violent crimes without fear of the mandatory minimum sentencing statute — so long as the defendant commits these various offenses within the, oftentimes, lengthy amount of time it takes to be apprehended, convicted and sentenced on the initial offense. This is clearly not the result the legislature intended and certainly not what the law abiding public deserves.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.