Commonwealth v. HeathCommonwealth v. Heath
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Zappala
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
This is an appeal by James B. Heath, Jr. from an order of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. 400 Pa.Super. 618, 576 A.2d 1133. The question presented is whether the court, which resentenced appellant after his original sentence was vacated, erred by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse pursuant to
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory rape, indecent assault, indecent exposure and corruption of minors. All of the offenses charged involved the same five-year-old child.
1
In the first sentencing proceeding, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total of seven to nineteen years imprisonment and seven years probation. This sentence included the minimum term of five years imprisonment for the charge of
*318
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse when the victim is under sixteen years of age.
In appellant’s first appeal to Superior Court, he argued, inter alia, that the trial judge erred when he imposed the mandatory minimum sentence under
On remand, the Commonwealth gave notice of its intention to seek the mandatory minimum sentence. The trial court then imposed the identical sentence that it had imposed at the first sentencing. Heath appealed that judgment of sentence to Superior Court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the same sentence because the Commonwealth had not given notice of its intention to seek the mandatory minimum sentence under
The statute in question here,
Unlike
Appellant does not contest the fact that he received notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to seek the mandatory minimum sentence on remand. In this, he received more than the statute required. His argument is simply that the Commonwealth waived any right it may have had to seek the mandatory minimum sentence since it did not provide such notice before the original sentencing and it did not appeal from the Superior Court order of remand.
Superior Court did not remand for imposition of a sentence other than the mandatory minimum sentence, as appellant would have us believe. This case was remanded for sentencing consistent with the Sentencing Code. The Commonwealth’s decision to abide by the Superior Court’s initial ruling, later rejected in Crum, in no way operates to prevent the proper application of the law at the resentencing ordered by that court.
Judgment Affirmed.
Notes
. Appellant was also convicted of simple assault, indecent assault, indecent exposure and corruption of minors involving two other minor victims.
.
(a) Mandatory sentence — A person convicted of the following offenses when the victim is under 16 years of age shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment as follows:
(b) Eligibility for parole. — Parole shall not be granted until the minimum term of imprisonment has been served.
. Subsequently, the Superior Court in a reported opinion, held that due process did not require that defendants receive notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to seek the mandatory five year sentence under