Appeals from the PCHA Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Huntingdon County, Criminal Division, at nos. 185 and 51 C.A. 1984 and No. 257 C.A. 1983.
Michael S. Gingerich, Lewistown, for appellant.
Andrew B. Kramer, Assistant District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Com., appellee.
Brosky, Johnson and Watkins, JJ.
[ 381 Pa. Super. Page 150]
This is a consolidated appeal from an order denying relief from a PCHA petition filed regarding charges at three different docket numbers. Appellant pled guilty to various drug charges among them were two conspiracy charges, one to distribute marijuana and another to distribute cocaine. Appellant alleges, among other things, that it was error to sentence him on both conspiracy charges as under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c) he was guilty of only one conspiracy. We agree and reverse the order appealed from to the extent it affirms sentences on both conspiracy charges.
Section 903(c) of the Crimes Code states:
Conspiracy with multiple criminal objectives. -- If person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of
[ 381 Pa. Super. Page 151]
only one conspiracy as long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
In Commonwealth v. Lore, 338 Pa. Super. 42, 487 A.2d 841 (1984), a panel of this Court expounded upon this section of the Code saying:
Section 903(c) articulates a concept which is not new in American jurisprudence, "The conspiracy is the crime, and that is one, however diverse its objects." Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 54, 63 S.Ct. 99, 102, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942), quoting Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 210, 39 S.Ct. 249, 252, 63 L.Ed. 561 (1919). See also W. LaFave and A. Scott, CRIMINAL LAW § 62 (1972) ("An agreement to commit several crimes is but one conspiracy.") In Braverman, supra, the Supreme Court went on to explain that, "The single agreement is ...