Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, S., Aplt.
2017 Pa. LEXIS 1714
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Appellant pled guilty to first-degree burglary and several conspiracy/theft counts; he sought sentencing under the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act (RRRI Act).
- RRRI Act eligibility excludes offenders who “demonstrate a history of present or past violent behavior,” but the Act does not define “history.”
- The common pleas court denied RRRI eligibility citing burglary as a crime of violence; ambiguity existed whether it relied on a prior conviction or the instant conviction.
- The Superior Court held a single present violent conviction (the instant burglary) sufficed to establish a disqualifying “history.”
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a single present conviction for a violent crime constitutes a statutory “history” and remanded the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings after vacating its order.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single present conviction for a violent crime (burglary) constitutes a “history of present or past violent behavior” under the RRRI Act | "History" implies an established pattern; statute should allow first-time violent offenders to be eligible because RRRI’s purpose is to reduce recidivism and favor reform candidates | Phrase is broad; "present or past" shows legislature meant to exclude any violent behavior, including the current conviction | The phrase is materially ambiguous; construed in light of legislative purpose, structure, and rule of lenity to exclude only those with an established record/pattern of violent behavior — a single present conviction alone does not establish the required "history." |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 627 Pa. 429, 101 A.3d 56 (discussing classification of burglary as a crime of violence)
- Commonwealth v. Corban Corp., 598 Pa. 459, 957 A.2d 274 (plain statutory language is best evidence of legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228, 766 A.2d 843 (rule of lenity applies where penal statute is ambiguous)
- United States v. R.L.C., 503 U.S. 291 (rule of lenity applied to questions affecting sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 613 Pa. 171, 32 A.3d 1231 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 583 Pa. 478, 879 A.2d 185 (noting sentencing-impacting provisions are subject to lenity)