Com. v. Hunter, T.
22 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Taaj M. Hunter pled guilty (open plea) on April 21, 2016 to carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1)).
- Sentencing occurred August 26, 2016: court imposed 3½ to 7 years’ imprisonment and stated it considered the deadly-weapon enhancement.
- Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion (challenging use of the deadly-weapon enhancement) on September 6, 2016; it was denied December 15, 2016.
- Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal and later a Rule 1925(b) statement; this Court initially questioned whether the appeal was interlocutory but discharged the rule and reached the merits.
- The sentencing claim challenges the discretionary aspects of sentencing based on the court’s use of the deadly-weapon enhancement, which is not permitted for certain Uniform Firearms Act violations.
- The trial court and the Commonwealth both conceded the deadly-weapon enhancement was improperly applied and recommended remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly applied a deadly-weapon enhancement at sentencing | Hunter argued the sentencing court erred by using the deadly-weapon enhancement when sentencing for a Uniform Firearms Act violation | Commonwealth conceded the enhancement was improperly applied; trial court also acknowledged error and recommended resentencing | Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa.Super. 2010) (addresses preservation and review of deadly-weapon enhancement challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requires separate concise statement under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) when challenging discretionary aspects of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa.Super. 2003) (substantial-question determination is case-specific)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910 (Pa.Super. 2000) (substantial question exists when sentence contradicts fundamental norms of sentencing)