Commonwealth v. Clegg
27 A.3d 1266
Pa.2011Background
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 prohibits firearm possession by anyone convicted of enumerated offenses listed in § 6105(b).
- The question at issue is whether attempted burglary is a qualifying offense under § 6105.
- In Feb 2008, Clegg was found in possession of two rifles during a hunting incident and had a prior attempted burglary conviction.
- Trial court dismissed the § 6105 charge; Commonwealth appealed, and Superior Court held attempted burglary qualified via the savings clause.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that attempted burglary is not a qualifying offense under § 6105, and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is attempted burglary a § 6105(b) qualifying offense? | Clegg argued attempted burglary is not enumerated and not saved by § 6105(b). | Commonwealth urged savings clause covers attempted burglary as a prior-law equivalent. | Not a qualifying offense; attempted burglary is not included. |
| Does the savings clause render attempted burglary equivalent to burglary under current § 6105? | Savings clause does not make attempted burglary equivalent to burglary. | Savings clause equates attempted burglary with burglary by prior-law equivalence. | Savings clause does not import attempt into current list; strict reading governs. |
| Does the parenthetical 'relating to burglary' import the separate offense of attempted burglary? | Parentheticals were mere convenience; do not import attempt. | Parentheticals imply inclusion of attempted burglary. | Parentheticals do not import attempted burglary. |
| Should the court construe § 6105 to reflect legislative intent to include inchoate offenses? | Legislature revised § 6105 in 1995 and did not include attempt; should not read it in. | Legislative intent evident to deter firearms offenses; include attempt through savings clause. | Statute read strictly; inchoate offenses not included in § 6105. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoke, 599 Pa. 587, 962 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2009) (statutory interpretation; strict construction; inchoate offenses not implied)
- Commonwealth v. Buck, 551 Pa. 184, 709 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1998) (sections 6103-6104 context and penalties for firearms offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Flynn, 314 Pa. Super. 460, 460 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super. 1983) (use of firearms in crime; evidence and sentencing considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Tate, 572 Pa. 411, 816 A.2d 1097 (Pa. 2003) (attempts and classifications in criminal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Northrip, 603 Pa. 544, 985 A.2d 734 (Pa. 2009) (equivalence of offenses; burden on statutory interpretation)
- Commonwealth v. Teeter, 961 A.2d 890 (Pa. Super. 2008) (plain meaning and statutory construction framework)