No. 2310 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, Criminal Section, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 1432-35 January Term, 1980
Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Kalvin Kahn, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Spaeth, Montgomery and Lipez, JJ.
[ 311 Pa. Super. Page 452]
This is a Commonwealth appeal under section 5 of Act 319,*fn1 which provides for interim sentencing guidelines, pending adoption of guidelines by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.*fn2 Section 5(a)*fn3 of Act 319 provides a guideline sentence of at least four to eight years imprisonment for certain specified offenses, if the defendant has been previously convicted of any of the specified offenses. Section 5(b) requires that, if the sentence deviates from the section 5(a) guideline, "the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence."
[ 311 Pa. Super. Page 453]
Defendant pled guilty to several charges, one of which (No. 1434) is specified in section 5(a), "aggravated assault as defined by 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) (relating to aggravated assault) involving the use of a firearm." At the sentencing hearing on September 9, 1980, the prosecutor claimed that defendant's prior aggravated assault conviction made Act 319 applicable. The judge refused to consider this claim, and imposed a two to five year sentence for aggravated assault, without stating any reasons.
At a hearing to reconsider the sentence on September 29, 1980, the judge did state reasons for the sentence.*fn4 He also purported to "reimpose" the two to five year sentence for aggravated assault, as well as the sentences which had been originally imposed on September 9 for the other offenses, although none of the sentences had ever been vacated. On October 9, 1980 the Commonwealth took this appeal.*fn5
Defendant contends that the appeal by the Commonwealth violates the double jeopardy clauses of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. We reject this contention for the reasons stated in Commonwealth v. Love, 295 Pa. Super.Ct. 276, 281-87, 441 A.2d 1230, 1232-36 (1982) (concurring opinion by Hoffman, J., joined by Cirillo, J.).*fn6
[ 311 Pa. Super. Page 454]
However, we do not review the merits of the Commonwealth's claim that the sentence was "unreasonable" under section 5(e)(3) of Act 319, because we find the issue waived. This court en banc has held unanimously that to preserve a claim under Act 319, the Commonwealth must file a motion to modify sentence in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1410. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 304 Pa. Super.Ct. 476, 450 A.2d 1011 (1982).*fn7 ...