Commonwealth v. MurphyCommonwealth v. Murphy
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hester
Appellant’s sole contention on this direct appeal is that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was sentenced to a “term of years” as required by
On March 3, 1980, appellant was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than twenty-three (23) months at Philadelphia County Prison on charges of unauthorized use of an automobile. While incarcerated, he attacked and injured two correctional officers with a piece of broken mirror. After a non-jury *375trial, appellant was adjudged guilty of two counts of Assault by Prisoner, two counts of Simple Assault, and two counts of Recklessly Endangering Another Person. Post-verdict motions were duly filed and denied; thereafter appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of two (2) to four (4) years imprisonment on the assault by prisoner convictions and one (1) to two (2) years imprisonment on the simple assault convictions. Appellant received suspended sentence on the two counts of recklessly endangering another person. This appeal challenges only the assault by prisoner convictions.
The statute under which appellant was convicted provides as follows:
§ 2703 . Assault by prisoner
A person who has been found guilty and is awaiting sentence to imprisonment, or a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years in any local or county detention facility, jail or prison or any State penal or correctional institution or other State penal or correctional facility, located in this Commpnwealth, is guilty of a felony of the second degree if he, while so confined or committed or while undergoing transportation to or from such’ an institution or facility in or to which he was confined or committed intentionally or knowingly commits an assault upon another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means or force likely to produce serious bodily injury.
As amended 1974, Dec. 10, P.L. 810, No. 268, § 1.
Appellant takes exception to the language “a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years.” He contends that, at the time he committed the assault upon the correctional officers, he was not imprisoned for the requisite “term of years” as mandated by the statute. Appellant reasons that “term of years” connotes a sentence of at least two years in length, and since his maximum sentence was twenty-three months, his sentence does not *376constitute a “term of years.” Consequently, the lower court erred in finding appellant guilty of assault by prisoner.
The legislative intent of
According to the canons of statutory construction “[i]t is to be assumed that the legislature uses words in their standard, or accepted, sense.” Commonwealth v. Ashford, 263 Pa.Super. 100, 105, 397 A.2d 420, 422 (1979). See
The above interpretation is supported by the legislative enactment of
Finally, the legislature itself has determined that, in interpreting statutory language, “[t]he singular shall include the plural, and the plural, the singular.”
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Notes
.
Every person who has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment in any penal institution located in this Commonwealth and whose sentence has not been commuted, who commits an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or instrument upon another, or by any means of force likely to produce serious bodily injury, is guilty of a crime, the penalty for which shall be the same as the penalty for murder of the second degree.
As amended 1974, March 26, P.L. 213, No. 46 § 4, imd. effective.
. The District Attorney of Philadelphia notes that, if appellant’s construction were accepted as true, it would result in excepting from the applicability of