Commonwealth v. Person
39 A.3d 302
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Bruce B. Person was convicted of PWID marijuana, criminal use of a communication instrument, possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of an offensive weapon.
- The trial court imposed a mandatory minimum of five years’ imprisonment under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1(a) based on possession of a firearm in close proximity to drugs.
- A shotgun found in the kitchen was deemed operable by the trial court but later found to be inoperable; the weapon issue was the subject of extraordinary relief and a prior reversal.
- Surveillance and undercover drug purchases in March 2009 linked to Person, including two purchases of marijuana with a $20 controlled buy.
- Police recovered marijuana and crack cocaine in a bedroom closet, a digital scale, and an inoperable shotgun in the kitchen; the $20 pre-recorded currency was recovered from Person.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing after finding the mandatory minimum should not apply due to lack of constructive possession of the firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearm was constructively possessed and in close proximity to drugs | Person contends no constructive possession or close proximity. | Commonwealth maintains constructive possession and proximity proven. | Issue established: no constructive possession; five-year minimum vacated |
| Whether the inoperable shotgun affects application of the mandatory minimum | Person argues inoperability defeats the provision. | Commonwealth argues proximity suffices regardless of operability. | Not necessary to decide; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanes, 955 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2008) (constructive possession requires dominion and intent inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Mudrick, 507 A.2d 1212 (Pa. 1986) (lived-in-residence possession can support constructive possession)
- Commonwealth v. Zortman, 605 Pa. 658, 993 A.2d 869 (Pa. 2010) (inclose proximity and operability considerations in proximity cases; later affirmed/related decision)
- Commonwealth v. Deshong, 850 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. 2004) (altered sentencing scheme warrants vacating entire sentence on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559 (Pa. 2006) (admission of documents does not automatically render statements admissible)