This appeal is from a judgment of sentence entered after appellant was found guilty in non-jury trial of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,
1
statutory rape,
2
indecent assault,
3
and corruption of the morals of a minor.
4
Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five (5) to ten (10) years pursuant to the mandatory provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718 (sentences for offenses against infant persons). He now presents three challenges to the statute. First, appellant argues that § 9718 imposes a mandatory maximum rather than a mandatory minimum sentence. Consequently, as the sentence imposed relies upon the statute to set a minimum term, reversible error was committed. Second, appellant asserts that § 9718 is inapplica
Appellant relies on the rule that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of defendants and if ambiguity exists in interpretation, “it must be turned to defendant’s advantage.”
Commonwealth v. Pemberth,
Unlike the sentencing statute construed in Glover, § 9718 clearly provides that a mandatory minimum sentence be imposed. The statute reads:
(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:
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) and (4) (relating to aggravated assault) — not less than two years.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape) — not less than five years.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) — not less than five years.
The words “not less than” used in the statute unambiguously connote a minimum term of imprisonment. It strains all notions of common sense to suggest that “not less than” can reasonably be interpreted as meaning “maximum.” Under the present facts, if such construction was followed,
Additionally, construing § 9718 as imposing a mandatory minimum sentence comports with a reading of the entire statute. Subsection (b) of § 9718 provides that “[p]arole shall not be granted until the minimum term of imprisonment has been served.” Use of the phrase “minimum term” directly refers to the mandatory sentence of “not less than (two or five) years” contained in subsection (a). This reference further supports our conclusion that the Legislature clearly has demonstrated its desire to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses against infant persons.
Accordingly, giving effect to the plain and unambiguous mandate of the Legislature, we hold that the trial court properly construed § 9718 as requiring the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for those defendants convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Appellant next asserts that for the purposes of sentencing his involuntary deviate sexual intercourse conviction, an offense included in the mandatory sentencing provisions of § 9718, should merge with his statutory rape conviction, an offense not subject to mandatory sentencing. Under such construction, appellant maintains that he should be sentenced for the offense carrying a non-mandatory sentence. This claim is unavailing. As stated by this court in
Commonwealth v. Sayko,
“[w]hen crimes merge for sentencing purposes, the one for which a defendant may be sentenced is the one to which the legislature has attached the greatest penalty.”
Appellant’s final claim is that under § 9718, the Commonwealth is impermissibly relieved of its burden of showing that the acts committed by a defendant merit a mandatory sentence with no parole. This contention has, at least implicitly, been rejected by the courts of the Commonwealth. As noted by this court in
Commonwealth v. Cooke,
“the creation of mandatory minimum sentences which remove judicial sentencing discretion in non-capital cases is not a constitutional violation.”
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
