Commonwealth v. Chester, M., Aplt.
101 A.3d 56
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellant Chester challenged RRRI Act eligibility after his Chester County first-degree burglary convictions were uncoupled from a reduced RRRI sentence.
- RRRI Act requires court to determine eligibility and apply RRRI minimum if offender is eligible.
- Gonzalez held second-degree burglary not to be ‘history of violent behavior’ under RRRI §4503(1).
- Commonwealth asserted first-degree burglary is violent behavior and part of a history to disqualify RRRI eligibility.
- Chester had multiple first-degree burglary convictions in a single incident; argument focused on whether this creates a ‘history’.
- Superior Court affirmed trial court, relying on Gonzalez; Court granted allowance to decide if first-degree burglary fits §4503(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is first-degree burglary ‘violent behavior’ under RRRI §4503(1)? | Chester argues burglary is not per se violent; only specific enumerated offenses are disqualifying. | Commonwealth contends burglary is a crime of violence and within §4503(1) catchall. | Yes; first-degree burglary constitutes violent behavior under §4503(1). |
| Does a single burglary conviction suffice as a ‘history’ of violent behavior? | Single offense cannot establish a ‘history’; argued by Chester that history requires multiple events. | Commonwealth contends that history can be single or multiple, and Chester’s multiple counts show history. | Multiple first-degree burglary convictions form a history of violent behavior; Chester’s convictions satisfy §4503(1). |
| Does §4503(1) contain an exclusive list restricting ‘violent behavior’ to enumerated offenses? | Expressio unius suggests only enumerated offenses disqualify. | Catchall language in §4503(1) includes other violent behaviors beyond enumerated offenses. | §4503(1) is a catchall; not limited to enumerated offenses. |
| Should the Court adopt a case-by-case violence inquiry for burglaries under §4503(1)? | Argues for factual, case-specific examination of violence in each burglary. | Urges broad rule that burglary is violent by its nature; no need for case-by-case evaluation. | Not adopted; burglary is per se violent behavior under §4503(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Small, 980 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2009) (burglary treated as violent crime for certain sentencing contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Rolan, 549 A.2d 553 (Pa. 1988) (burglary involves threat of violence due to non-privileged entry)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa. 2007) (burglary consistently classified as violent crime in PA)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 10 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (second-degree burglary not ‘violent behavior’ under RRRI §4503(1))
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 47 A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012) (RRRI eligibility for drug offenses despite non-enumerated status)
- Commonwealth v. Main, 6 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mandatory-minimum treated with RRRI eligibility considerations)