Commonwealth v. Dixon
53 A.3d 839
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Dixon pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver (PWID) of marijuana and to possession of drug paraphernalia.
- The sentencing court imposed a two-year mandatory minimum under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6317 for offenses within 1,000 feet of a school, applying it to a location near the Banks Group Daycare.
- The Banks Group Daycare was located within 1,000 feet but not within 250 feet of the offense site.
- The court relied on the Banks Group Daycare being a “school” under § 6317 and imposed 30–60 months for PWID with a concurrent parole-violation-related term of 6–12 months, reduced to 22.5 months via RRRI.
- Dixon challenged the sentence, arguing the daycare is not a school under § 6317; the majority holds the term does not include daycare facilities, so the two-year minimum does not apply; the case is remanded for resentencing; a dissent would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term 'school' in §6317 includes daycare centers. | Dixon contends daycare is a school under §6317. | Commonwealth argues daycare is a preschool and thus a school. | Daycare not within §6317’s 'school' meaning; rule vacates minimum. |
| Whether Youth/School Enhancement 204 Pa.Code § 303.10 applies to this case. | Commonwealth claims enhancement applies; daycare qualifies as school. | Dixon argues enhancement is inapplicable as daycare isn’t an elementary/secondary school. | Enhancement does not apply; applies to elementary/secondary schools only. |
| What is the proper interpretive approach to §6317 and related statutes B | Statute intended broad protection for children in proximity to drugs; legislative intent supports expanding to daycare. | Statute uses explicit enumeration; cannot read daycare into 'school'. | Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; daycare not enumerated; statute strictly construed; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marion, 981 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (statutory interpretation under §6317; intent of Legislature)
- Commonwealth v. Drummond, 775 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc; context for §6317 construction)
- Commonwealth v. Campbell, 758 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2000) (statutory scope of §6317; legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 994 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. 2010) (treats related statutes together; interpret under 1921)
- Commonwealth v. Kunkle, 817 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§6317 is a penal statute; strict construction)
- Commonwealth v. Wilgus, 40 A.3d 1201 (Pa. 2012) (rule of lenity limits in penal statute interpretation)