Commonwealth v. Brown
159 A.3d 531
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Shawn M. Brown was convicted by a jury of multiple sex offenses for conduct occurring March 1, 2011 against his 11-year-old male cousin, including rape of a child and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) with a child based on one act of oral sex.
- The Commonwealth charged only one underlying act of oral sex as the basis for both the rape-of-a-child and IDSI-with-a-child counts.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed separate, consecutive prison terms for rape of a child (120–240 months) and IDSI with a child (60–120 months), plus probation for related counts.
- Brown appealed, arguing the imposition of separate sentences for the two convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the convictions arose from a single criminal act and have identical statutory elements in this context.
- The Commonwealth and trial court conceded the crimes arose from a single act; the dispute centered on whether the statutory elements of one offense are included in the other under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9765 (merger-for-sentencing test).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rape of a child and IDSI with a child merge for sentencing when based on the same oral-sex act | Commonwealth: crimes arose from single act but argued elements may be distinct (implicitly contesting merger) | Brown: convictions arise from same act and statutory elements are identical for oral/anal intercourse, so sentences must merge under §9765 and Double Jeopardy | The court held the elements are the same for an oral-sex act; the convictions merge for sentencing and separate sentences were improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 638 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super. 1994) (held rape and IDSI are identical where underlying act is oral or anal intercourse)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (endorsed statutory elements test for merger under §9765)
- Commonwealth v. Nero, 58 A.3d 802 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for legality of sentence is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Wade, 33 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussing §9765 codification of prior merger doctrine)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (legislature may define crimes and punishments; merger test addresses legislative intent under Double Jeopardy)
Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing to permit sentencing on the single merged offense.