Court Opinion

ID: 9540129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:13:00.218676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:38.964889
License: Public Domain

*265Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I concur with the majority, but write separately to express concerns about the continued recognition of the alleged “recidivist philosophy,” which in my view defers attention from the proper canons of statutory construction.
As the majority states, our objective is to effectuate legislative intent, which is most appropriately found in the plain language of the statute itself. It is the legislature’s prerogative to afford harsher punishments for multiple offenses, including those occurring after commission, but prior to conviction. However, absent clear language to the contrary, one must be convicted of a first offense prior to the commission of the second offense in order to receive an enhanced penalty. This does not imply the perpetrator is not sentenced for serial crimes, only that he does not receive the enhanced grading for sentencing purposes.
Madame Justice Todd has appropriately provided a wealth of case law detailing Pennsylvania’s jurisprudence on this issue; the need for a prior conviction before grading enhancement is the general rule, only to be altered when the legislature so decides. Therefore, in my view, there is no need to question examine what philosophy a statute reflects. Rather, when considering grading enhancements, the question should be, “does the plain language of the statute warrant enhanced grading for multiple counts?” In this case, the language does not afford such an enhancement.