Com. v. Wolfe, J.
1236 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- In the late 1990s Wolfe was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and burglary, convictions that statutorily bar firearm possession under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
- On December 2, 2014 Officer Kyle Jury found Wolfe in a hunting tree stand near residences, in possession of a firearm; Wolfe lacked identification and a hunting license.
- Officer Jury had previously told Wolfe in 2013 that Wolfe could not possess firearms due to his record; Officer Jury confiscated the firearm, confirmed the convictions, and arrested Wolfe. A station search revealed a small amount of marijuana and a pipe.
- The Commonwealth charged Wolfe with persons not to possess firearms, possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful hunting in a safety zone, and hunting without a license; Wolfe was tried by bench and convicted of persons not to possess firearms and hunting without a license.
- The trial court sentenced Wolfe to an aggregate 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment; Wolfe appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence because he believed his disqualification had expired and (2) a constitutional challenge to § 6105 based on recent federal case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for persons not to possess firearms | Commonwealth: evidence (stipulated prior convictions + officer testimony + possession) proves elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Wolfe: credible testimony he believed his firearms disqualification had expired; mistake of law/entitled to acquittal | Conviction affirmed—evidence sufficient; mistake-of-law defense fails and Wolfe presented no admissible evidence showing he was misinformed about disqualification |
| Constitutionality of § 6105 (Second Amendment challenge) | Commonwealth: § 6105 constitutional as applied and facially; felon-dispossession statutes regulate unprotected conduct | Wolfe: relies on federal cases to argue he should be able to possess a firearm (argues statute unconstitutional) | Issue abandoned/waived for failure to brief; alternatively meritless on the merits—as-applied and facial challenges fail in light of controlling precedent (including Binderup overruling Barton) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (sufficiency and circumstantial evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 1925(b) preservation requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (considering merits despite untimely Rule 1925(b) statement when trial court addressed issues)
- Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (briefing requirements; appellate advocacy)
- Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 605 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (abandonment and waiver for undeveloped appellate issues)
- Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (standard of review for statutory constitutionality)
- Commonwealth v. Felder, 75 A.3d 513 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (facial vs. as-applied constitutional challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (distinguishing facial and as-applied attacks)
- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (prior Third Circuit decision regarding restoration-of-rights argument)
- Binderup v. Attorney General, 836 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (Third Circuit en banc decision narrowing Barton and limiting restoration arguments under the Second Amendment)