Com. v. Colton, P.
151 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Phillip D. Colton was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual offenses committed against his paramour’s mentally disabled granddaughter, a minor.
- Two informations were at issue; Information No. 454-2013 included Count 1 (rape of a mentally disabled person, 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(a)(5)) and Count 2 (rape of a child, 18 Pa.C.S. §3121(c)), which arose from a single incident.
- On remand from the Superior Court (which vacated the original sentence because of Alleyne-related mandatory-minimum error), the trial court resentenced Colton to an aggregate 30–60 years, assigning separate terms to Counts 1 and 2 of Information No. 454-2013.
- Colton moved post-sentence, arguing that imposing separate sentences for both subsections of §3121 based on one act violated double jeopardy/merger principles and requested vacatur of the sentence on Count 2.
- The trial court denied relief, concluding Section 9765 bars merger unless one offense’s elements are wholly subsumed by the other; Counts 1 and 2 have distinct elements (mental disability vs. age <13), so separate sentences were permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by imposing separate sentences for two subsections of §3121 based on the same act | The Commonwealth: separate sentences are permitted because each statutory subsection contains elements the other does not | Colton: double jeopardy/merger prohibits multiple punishments for one act; one conviction should subsume the other | Court: No error — §9765 requires both a single act and complete element inclusion; here elements differ, so no merger and separate sentences stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (interprets 42 Pa.C.S. § 9765 to permit separate punishments when offenses arising from one act include distinct statutory elements)
- Commonwealth v. Coppedge, 984 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2009) (explains that merger requires that all elements of one offense be included in the other)
- Commonwealth v. Wade, 33 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2011) (applies Baldwin and rejects broader state-constitutional double jeopardy protection for merger beyond legislative scheme)