Commonwealth v. Helsel, 53 A.3d 906

Helsel appealed a May 6, 2011 Blair County judgment of sentence challenging three-strikes sentencing under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.2.
In 2009 Helsel approached juveniles in an Altoona cemetery, restrained them, displayed a knife, attempted to have sex with M.B. and L.G., and raped M.B.; resulting acts led to police involvement and a later confession after Miranda warnings.
Fingernail DNA from M.B. matched Helsel; Helsel was charged with 37 counts and tried before a jury; he testified denying the acts and claiming police mistreatment.
At sentencing, the Commonwealth sought life imprisonment under § 9718.2(a)(2) based on Helsel’s two prior rape convictions; Helsel argued it should be treated as a second strike under Shiffler because the prior rapes occurred in one term with no time to reform.
The trial court sentenced Helsel to a life term on attempted rape of a child and related terms; it later clarified it as two concurrent life sentences with additional terms.
On appeal the court held § 9718.2(a)(2) is ambiguously silent about sequential predicate convictions and thus is subject to Shiffler’s recidivist philosophy; Helsel must be resentenced under § 9718.2(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Helsel was correctly sentenced as a three-strike offender	Helsel argues Shiffler applies; two rapes concurrently served as one term, so only two opportunities to reform existed.	Commonwealth argues § 9718.2(a)(2) is unambiguous and applies third-strike life imprisonment regardless of sequentiality.	Sentencing should follow Shiffler; Helsel is not properly third-strike under § 9718.2(a)(2).
Whether Helsel's life sentence for attempted rape of a child violates cruel and unusual punishment	Moot due to remand and re-sentencing under § 9718.2(a)(1).	Life sentence may be constitutional under the statute regardless of remand.	Moot; not reached on this record.
Whether the trial court erred by not granting a demurrer to attempted rape of a child	Evidence insufficient because intent to act on age of victim not proven; Hacker controls.	Evidence supports attempt regardless of age knowledge; Hacker is distinguishable but not controlling.	Sufficiency preserved for review; not dispositive because remand requires retrial as appropriate.
Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred in closing arguments	Prosecutor misstated facts by referring to 'officers' seeing Helsel and injected personal opinion by calling him 'red-handed'.	Misstatements were brief, cured, and did not prejudice the defense; summary of evidence was permissible.	No reversible error; no new trial required.

Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005) (third-strike interpretation ambiguously silent; sequentiality not required)
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 834 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2003) (defined 'transaction' in sentencing context for recidivist analysis)
Commonwealth v. Hacker, 15 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2011) (solicitation/rape of a child case; mens rea vs age element interpretation)