DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1820
Citation Numbers: 229 Pa. Super. 491, 322 A.2d 710, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2218
Judges: Cercone, Hoffman, Jacobs, Price, Spaeth, Voort, Watkins
Filed Date: 7/18/1974
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
In this case appellant contends that the lower court erred in not sentencing him under an act which reduced the penalty for the crime he committed and became effective after commission of the crime but before sentence was imposed. We agree with appellant and, therefore, remand for resentencing.
On November 13, 1972, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the violation of §624(6). He received a suspended jail sentence and was released on probation for a period of 18 months. Appellant, however, violated the terms of his probation, and on August 6, 1973, was sentenced to not less than 3 nor more than 23 months in Montgomery County Prison. It was from the imposition of this sentence that appellant has appealed.
Appellant claims that he should have received the benefit of the amendment to §624 which reduced the
We were faced with a similar question in Commonwealth ex rel. Milk v. Maroney, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 442, 181 A.2d 702, allocatur refused, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. nnin (1962), cert, denied, 372 U.S. 920 (1963). In that case a sentence of 7% to 15 years was imposed upon petitioner for prison breach.
Under the facts of the present case where the amendment to the penalty provision of §624 of The Vehicle Code
Remanded for resentencing.
This amendment became effective 60 days after its final enactment. Act of November 26, 1970, P. L. 707, §3, 1 Pa. C.S. §1701.
Act of June 24, 1939, P. JO. 872, §309, as amended, 18 P.S. §4309.
Act of July 29, 1953, P. L. 1445, §1, 18 P.S. §4309.
Several other jurisdictions follow the rule that where a statute mitigating punishment becomes effective after the criminal act but before judgment the lesser punishment should be imposed. In Re Fink, 63 Cal. Rptr. 369, 433 P.2d 161 (1967) ; State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971) ; State v. Haynie, 115 N.J. Super. 417, 279 A.2d 909 (1971).
Act of May 26, 1972, P. L. 313, No. 84, §1, 75 P.S. §624 (Supp. 1973-74).
For examples of saving clauses see: Act of December 6, 1972, P. L. 1482, No. 334, §2, eff., June 6, 1973; Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, §104, 75 P.S. §104.