Com. v. Fulk, E.
Com. v. Fulk, E. No. 2037 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Erik Patrick Fulk pleaded guilty to retail theft/theft and to multiple drug offenses (PWID, conspiracy, criminal use of a communication facility) and was sentenced on July 18, 2016.
- At docket 414: nine months to two years (county), restitution, and ban from Wal‑Mart; at docket 416: 45 months to 10 years (state) on Count III, others concurrent.
- Fulk filed a post‑sentence motion arguing the trial court erred by finding him ineligible for a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) minimum sentence; the motion was denied and he appealed.
- Central legal dispute: whether a prior first‑degree burglary conviction in 2005 constituted “violent behavior” under 61 Pa.C.S. § 4503(1), rendering Fulk RRRI‑ineligible.
- Fulk argued the burglary was nonviolent because no person was present during the entry and thus should not disqualify him from RRRI; the Commonwealth and the court relied on precedents treating first‑degree burglary as violent by its nature.
Issues
| Issue | Fulk's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by finding Fulk ineligible for an RRRI minimum because his prior first‑degree burglary was not "violent behavior." | Fulk: his 2005 first‑degree burglary involved no person present, so it was not violent and should not disqualify him from RRRI. | Commonwealth: first‑degree burglary is a crime of violence as a matter of law; non‑privileged entry invites dangerous resistance and qualifies as violent behavior for RRRI purposes. | Court: Affirmed. First‑degree burglary constitutes violent behavior under §4503(1) even if no one was present; Fulk is RRRI‑ineligible and not entitled to resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2014) (first‑degree burglary constitutes violent behavior for RRRI eligibility)
- Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to impose RRRI minimum on eligible offender is legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Gerald, 47 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016) (timing/jurisdictional note on post‑sentence motion denial by operation of law)
- Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appeal timing when trial court loses jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2009) (interpretation of burglary grading under prior statute)