Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Armstrong, A.
107 A.3d 735
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellant was subject to Pennsylvania’s three-strikes sentencing statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714, which increases penalties where the defendant has two or more prior convictions from separate criminal transactions.
- The narrow question presented: whether § 9714(b) (third‑strike penalty) may be applied when the defendant was not previously sentenced under § 9714(a) (the earlier two‑strike sentencing provision).
- The Superior Court held that a defendant who was not previously sentenced under § 9714(a) cannot later be sentenced under § 9714(b), relying on the “recidivist theory.”
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order, affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on that specific issue and expressly adopted the Superior Court’s reasoning as binding precedent.
- Justice Eakin (joined by Justice Stevens) dissented, arguing the Court should not adopt part of a lower court opinion by per curiam order and contending the Superior Court’s reliance on the recidivist theory improperly overrides the statute’s plain language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9714(a)(2) must have been applied previously to allow § 9714(b) third‑strike sentencing | Commonwealth: recidivist theory bars § 9714(b) when prior sentences were not imposed under § 9714(a) | Appellant: plain statutory text governs; if two prior convictions from separate transactions existed at time of current offense, § 9714(b) applies regardless of prior § 9714(a) sentencing | Court: Affirmed Superior Court — prior sentencing under § 9714(a) is required to invoke § 9714(b) (per curiam adoption of Superior Court analysis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 623 Pa. 560, 83 A.3d 411 (Pa. 2014) (Supreme Court order affirming Superior Court on the § 9714(a)/(b) issue)
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Superior Court opinion applying recidivist theory to preclude § 9714(b) when § 9714(a) was not previously applied)
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 583 Pa. 478, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005) (recidivist‑theory precedent relied on by lower courts)
- Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa. 465, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006) (related precedent discussing application limits of § 9714)
- Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 533 Pa. 294, 621 A.2d 990 (Pa. 1993) (earlier decision adopting Superior Court’s recidivist rationale under a prior version of § 9714)
- Satovich v. Lee, 385 Pa. 133, 122 A.2d 212 (Pa. 1956) (discussing effects of adopting lower court opinions when affirmed)
- Commonwealth v. Sutton, 125 Pa. Super. 407, 189 A. 556 (Pa. Super. 1937) (source of the recidivist rationale quoted in Dickerson)