Court Opinion

ID: 9650354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:32:51.543893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:20.621933
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
BENDER, J.:
¶ 1 I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Commonwealth v. Nixon, 801 A.2d 1241 (Pa.Super.2002), leaves this court no option but to rule that the burglary be graded as a felony of the first degree rather than a felony of the second degree. However, I feel compelled to note my disagreement with that conclusion. It is clear the building was not occupied. While the building was being adapted for over*946night accommodation it had not been so adapted at the time of the burglary. It was in the process of construction. No one was living there. The statutory distinction is intended to more severely punish a burglary which involves an occupied structure or one that could be occupied. The reason for the increased punishment is that burglary of occupied structures increases the risk of injury or death to persons involved. The structure in the instant case was a home under construction. I see no reason to torture the plain meaning of the statute in such a manner simply to sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment as a felony of the first degree rather than as a felony of the second degree. The punishment permitted as a felony of the second degree is sufficient.