Court Opinion

ID: 9909159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:09:36.198173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:13.174419
License: Public Domain

J-S27008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 DEAN REEDY                               :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 287 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 20, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal
                Division at No(s): CP-49-CR-0000515-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.:            FILED: DECEMBER 12, 2023

      I fully join my colleagues’ reasoning in vacating Appellant’s judgment of

sentence and remanding for resentencing. I write separately merely to note

two things. First, I believe the worksheet cited by the Commonwealth, see

Commonwealth’s brief at 9, is a reference to the Guideline Sentence Form,

which is included within the certified record. Nonetheless, I wholly agree with

the majority that the section within the worksheet ascribing a “one” to M-1

offenses that, vaguely, “involv[e] children,” is inconsistent with the

Sentencing Code as it pertains to COM. See Majority at 5 n.1; see also 204

Pa. Code 303.7 (listing M-1 offenses that “involve death or danger to children”

and that count as a “one,” of which COM is not included). Second, because

this Court is without the benefit of the PSI report, we cannot ascertain under

which subsection of the COM statute Appellant was convicted. See 204 Pa.

Code 303.15 (listing standard COM offenses, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(i), as
J-S27008-23

M-1 and counting as “m” for prior record purposes, while listing COM with a

course of conduct of a sexual nature, § 6301(a)(1)(ii), as F-3 and a “one”).

Regardless, there is no dispute that Appellant’s COM conviction was graded as

an M-1 and, therefore, for the same reasons as aptly explained by the

majority, I agree that the trial court erred when it applied a “one” to that

conviction.

      P.J.E. Bender and Judge Sullivan join this Concurring Statement.

                                    -2-