Commonwealth v. Kenney
210 A.3d 1077
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- In 2013 Kenney drove into a guardrail/tree, killing his passenger; he was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving death (75 Pa.C.S. § 3742), homicide by vehicle, DUI-related counts, and summary Vehicle Code offenses.
- Blood-alcohol test results were suppressed; Kenney pled guilty to leaving the scene involving death, homicide by vehicle, and five summary offenses; the Commonwealth nol-prossed the DUI and other counts.
- At the time of the offense, § 3742(b)(3) required a mandatory minimum one-year imprisonment for leaving the scene resulting in death (if Commonwealth gave notice), and § 3742(c) prohibited imposing any lesser sentence or suspending sentence.
- The sentencing court imposed county intermediate punishment (CIP) for the § 3742 offense (five years CIP with one year house arrest/electronic monitoring) and a concurrent CIP for homicide by vehicle—neither CIP included a term of imprisonment.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the CIP sentence violated § 3742’s mandatory minimum and its “notwithstanding any other provision of law” / “no authority…to impose any lesser sentence” language.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Kenney's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court could impose CIP (without imprisonment) for leaving the scene causing death despite § 3742(b)(3)’s mandatory one-year imprisonment | § 3742 requires a minimum one-year term and forbids any lesser sentence or suspension; CIP is thus unlawful | CIP is permitted because the County Intermediate Punishment Act allows CIP and § 3742 doesn’t expressly exclude CIP | Court held CIP was unlawful for the § 3742 offense; sentencing court lacked authority to impose CIP without the mandatory one-year imprisonment |
| Whether absence of § 3742 in § 9763/§ 9802’s list affects CIP eligibility when § 3742 contains overriding language | The omission plus § 3742’s “notwithstanding” and “no authority” clauses prohibit CIP | Kenney argued statutory scheme and eligibility provisions allow CIP | Court relied on statutory construction and controlling precedent to find omission plus restrictive language bars CIP |
| Whether the entire sentencing package should be vacated | Commonwealth requested vacation of the § 3742 sentence; court considered potential impact on concurrent homicide-by-vehicle sentence | Kenney did not directly contest vacation of entire judgment | Court vacated the entire judgment to allow resentencing on all counts so the sentencing court can account for the mandatory § 3742 sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 110 A.3d 146 (Pa. 2015) (statute imposing mandatory minimum with "notwithstanding" language bars CIP when not specifically authorized)
- Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 190 A.3d 1137 (Pa. 2018) (standard of review for statutory construction in sentencing; interaction of CIP and mandatory minimum regimes)
- Commonwealth v. Mendozajr, 71 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Super. 2013) (vacatur required where illegal sentence imposed)
- Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 123 A.3d 1065 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses when CIP may be applied to Vehicle Code offenses specifically referenced in § 9763)
- Commonwealth v. Sutton, 583 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 1990) (vacatur of entire sentencing package appropriate where one sentence affects overall scheme)