Commonwealth v. Williams (1994)

Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 286 (1994).

Williams, 652 A.2d at 285 (emphasis added).

See generally Williams, 539 Pa. at 252 , 652 A.2d at 285 (“[T]he ‘recidivist philosophy’ possesses no authority which would override clearly contrary statutory language.”). 6 Accordingly, we hold that Section 9714(a)(1) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(1), requires that a second-strike offender be sentenced to the prescribed minimum term of incarceration for each conviction of a crime of violence that is part of the second strike.

Similarly, consideration of “the ‘recidivist philosophy’ . . . is a valid tool in interpreting ambiguous statutory language.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283, 284-85 (Pa. 1994).

If the legislature enacts a statute which clearly expresses a different application, the `recidivist philosophy' possesses no authority which would override clearly contrary statutory language." Bradley, 834 A.2d at 1135 (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 285 (1994)).

See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 999 (Pa. Super. 2009), quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 253 n.1, 652 A.2d 283 , 285 n.1 (1994) (“five broad purposes of the penal system: protection of society, general deterrence . . . , individual deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution”).

Williams, 652 A.2d at 284-285 (emphasis in original).

In answering this question, we did not have the benefit of the defendant’s argument that Section 9714 should be interpreted according to its recidivist philosophy, i.e., a philosophy suggesting that the “point of sentence enhancement is to punish more severely offenders who have persevered in criminal activity despite the theoretically beneficial effects of penal discipline.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 284 (1994) (quoting Dickerson, 621 A.2d at 992…

Appellant’s argument interprets Section 9714 not according to its plain terms but according to what this Court has in other situations characterized as “the recidivist philosophy,” i.e., a philosophy suggesting that the “point of sentence enhancement is to punish more severely offenders who have persevered in criminal activity despite the theoretically beneficial effects of penal discipline.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 284 (1994), quoting Commonwea…

Moreover, even where legislation demonstrates a ‘recidivist philosophy,’ that philosophy cannot ‘be exalted over the plain language of the statute.’ Brosius [v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing], 664 A.2d [199,] 201 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)]. ‘Where there is no ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation.’ Commonwealth v. Williams, . . . 652 A.2d 283, 285 ([Pa.] 1994).

The Commonwealth reasons that this appeal rests on the plain language of Section 9795.1, citing Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 562 Pa. 120 , 753 A.2d 807 (2000), for the point that courts may not “read language into” a statute if the language is clear as it stands: “Where there is no ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation.” Id. at 809 (quoting Commonwealth v. [Tyrone] Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 285 (1994)).

If the legislature enacts a statute which clearly expresses a different application, the ‘recidivist philosophy1 possesses no authority which would override clearly contrary statutory language.” Commonwealth v. Bradley, 575 Pa. 141 , 834 A.2d 1127, 1135 (2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283, 285 (1994)); Vasquez, 753 A.2d at 811 (Cappy, C.J., concurring) (stating that the legislature is free “to enact sentencing schemes that reflect penal philo…

Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249, 252 , 652 A.2d 283, 285 (1994).

Indeed, as our Supreme Court has noted, “[w]here there is no ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249, 253 , 652 A.2d 283, 285 (1994).

Moreover, even where legislation demonstrates a “recidivist philosophy,” that philosophy cannot “be exalted over the plain language of the statute.” Brosius, 664 A2d at 201 . ‘Where there is no ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249, 253 , 652 A2d 283, 285 (1994).

See also, Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283 (1994) (rejecting the argument that the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(i) applies only if the defendant has a prior drug trafficking conviction at the time he committed the offense); Rush, 959 A.2d at 950 (Section 7508 requires enhanced sentences if, at the time of sentencing, the defendant has already been convicted of a prior drug trafficking offense.

Appellant is incorrect. ¶ 13 The emphasis Appellant places upon the public protection principle obscures other factors which the sentencing court may consider in fashioning a sentence. [T]he court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the …

See, Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283 (1994).

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283 No. 40 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1994, Pa., filed eo die.

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 249 , 652 A.2d 283 No. 40 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1994, Pa., filed eo die; Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 533 Pa. 294 , 621 A.2d 990 (1993).

I, § 13. 23 Graham, 560 U.S. at 71 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 999 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). 24 Id. (citing Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 25 (2003) (plurality)); see also Commonwealth v. Coleman, 285 A.3d 599 , 613 (Pa. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283 , 285 n.1 (Pa. 1994)) (“[S]entencing serves many purposes, including ‘protection of society, general deterrence (example to others), individual deterrence, rehabilitation, and …

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283 , FN 1 (Pa. 1994); see also Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 999 (Pa. Super. 2009).

See Lilley, 978 A.2d 999 , citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283 , 285 n.1 (Pa. 1994) (noting “five broad purposes of the penal system: -9- J.

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283 No. 40 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1994, Pa., filed eo die; Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 533 Pa. 294 , 621 A.2d 990 (1993).

See Commonwealth v. Williams, 652 A.2d 283 No. 40 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1994, Pa., filed eo die.