212 A.3d 34
Pa.2019Background
- Markease Cousins arrested July 21, 2016; search incident to arrest revealed 1.75 grams of cocaine.
- Cousins convicted under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16) (possession of a controlled substance).
- Trial court imposed 1–5 years for probation violation and an additional 1–3 years for the new possession conviction, relying on § 780-113(b)’s enhanced maximum based on prior drug-act convictions.
- Prior convictions listed in the presentence report included possession of a small amount of marijuana (§ 780-113(a)(31)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 780-113(a)(32)).
- Cousins appealed, arguing § 780-113(b)’s phrase “a violation of this act under this section” is ambiguous and should be read to apply only to the offenses enumerated in subsection (b); Superior Court affirmed.
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allowance and affirmed Superior Court, holding § 780-113(b) unambiguous and that prior convictions under (a)(31) and (a)(32) may trigger the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Cousins' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase “a violation of this act under this section” in § 780-113(b) limits enhanced sentencing to offenses specifically enumerated in subsection (b) | “Section” is ambiguous; should be read narrowly to mean subsection (b) only; apply rule of lenity to construe in defendant’s favor | “This section” refers to § 780-113 as a whole; legislature used “section,” “subsection,” and “clause” consistently as shorthand; enhancement applies to any prior violation under § 780-113 | Court held phrase is unambiguous: “this section” means § 780-113 in its entirety; enhancement validly applied to prior (a)(31) and (a)(32) convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 86 (Pa. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles and reliance on plain meaning)
- Booth v. Commonwealth, 766 A.2d 843 (Pa. 2001) (rule of lenity requires strict construction of ambiguous penal statutes)
- Pitner v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2007) (interpreting § 780-113(b) as not limited to offenses enumerated therein)
- Bivens v. Commonwealth, 651 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 1994) (treatment of “this section” language in § 780-113)
- Lane v. Commonwealth, 345 A.2d 233 (Pa. Super. 1975) (addressing enhanced sentencing questions under drug statute)
- Scungio Borst & Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Dev., 146 A.3d 232 (Pa. 2016) (standards for de novo review on statutory construction)