Court Opinion

ID: 9649764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:08:52.239906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:25.858208
License: Public Domain

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I fully agree with the majority’s discussion and disposition of appellant’s first issue. I find merit, however, in appellant’s second argument, and I would therefore vacate the sentence for possession of an instrument of crime.
I agree with the majority’s statement that “the harm against which the statute protects is the deprivation of property by threatened or actual physical harm which may not involve any instrument of crime;” however, in the case before us, the “threatened or actual physical harm” did in fact involve the possession of an instrument of crime, and the two crimes therefore should merge for sentencing purposes.1 Commonwealth v. Williams, 344 Pa.Super. 108, 133-35, 496 A.2d 31, 45 (1985).

. Although the majority cites Commonwealth v. Walls, 303 Pa.Super. 284, 449 A.2d 690 (1982), for the proposition that these crimes do not merge, Walls did not discuss or decide the merger issue now before us.