HB 1851 - Another to be aware of.

[Brick]

Find the original here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=1851&pn=2432

Whether you agree with mandatory sentences or not, the people that wrote this seem to mean business with it and not just by increasing the term of the sentence. You should note that the wording is being changed to read shall be sentenced instead of if sentenced (italics added to emphasize text to be removed) Note also that this applies to crimes of violence and second and subsequent convictions.

PRINTER'S NO. 2432
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL No. 1851
Session of 2009

INTRODUCED BY PAYNE, BOYD, D. COSTA, HORNAMAN, MURT, READSHAW,
SWANGER, J. TAYLOR AND VULAKOVICH, JULY 10, 2009

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, JULY 10, 2009

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the
2 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for
3 sentences for offenses committed with firearms.
4 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
5 hereby enacts as follows:
6 Section 1. Section 9712(a) of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania
7 Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
8 § 9712. Sentences for offenses committed with firearms.
9 (a) Mandatory sentence.--Except as provided under section
10 9716 (relating to two or more mandatory minimum sentences
11 applicable), any person who is convicted in any court of this
12 Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section
13 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and subsequent
14 offenses), shall[, if] be sentenced, notwithstanding any other
15 provision of this title or other statute to the contrary, to a
16 minimum sentence of at least ten years of total confinement, if
17 the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a
18 firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or

1 functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death
2 or serious bodily injury, during the commission of the offense.
3 [, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of
4 total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this
5 title or other statute to the contrary.] Such persons shall not
6 be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.
7 * * *
8 Section 2. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

20090HB1851PN2432

[knight0334]

meh...

I have mixed feelings on it.. Sure, mandatory sentences are bad, but getting folks off the streets that use firearms illegally is good.

This might be one of those concession things that I'd let pass if the anti's help pass a pro-gun/carry bill. ...which is how pro-gun bills get passed in PA. For something pro-gun/carry, we give on something that criminalizes or gives more jail time on something else.

[dc dalton]

I don't have a problem with this one ONE BIT.

To be used they must be convicted of an offense and if they are convicted and used a gun to commit the crime I say let them rot. Every crime committed with a gun puts legal gun owners in a 'bad light' with the general public and gives more ammunition to the idiots to place more restrictions on us.

[rwilson452]

This will just be another charge the DA can use and toss in the round file as a part of the plea bargain. Not very often do the DAs charge a firearms offence when they can get them to plead out on a lesser offense.

[JCWohlschlag]

As far as I can tell, this bill does nothing except change the “mandatory” minimum sentence from five years to ten years, when you look past the casual reordering of clauses.

Existing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (a):

(a) Mandatory sentence.--Except as provided under section 9716 (relating to two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable), any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, during the commission of the offense, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. Such persons shall not be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.

Potential modified 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (a):

(a) Mandatory sentence.--Except as provided under section 9716 (relating to two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable), any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), shall be sentenced, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary, to a minimum sentence of at least ten years of total confinement, if the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, during the commission of the offense. Such persons shall not be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.

So criminals can magically be dismissed from mandatory ten-year sentences instead of the mandatory five-year sentences they currently get dismissed from. Sorry to be cynical, but this seems pretty damn useless to me.

[headcase]

As far as I can tell, this bill does nothing except change the “mandatory” minimum sentence from five years to ten years, when you look past the casual reordering of clauses.

Existing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (a):

(a) Mandatory sentence.--Except as provided under section 9716 (relating to two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable), any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, during the commission of the offense, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. Such persons shall not be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.

Potential modified 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (a):

(a) Mandatory sentence.--Except as provided under section 9716 (relating to two or more mandatory minimum sentences applicable), any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of a crime of violence as defined in section 9714(g) (relating to sentences for second and subsequent offenses), shall be sentenced, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary, to a minimum sentence of at least ten years of total confinement, if the person visibly possessed a firearm or a replica of a firearm, whether or not the firearm or replica was loaded or functional, that placed the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, during the commission of the offense. Such persons shall not be eligible for parole, probation, work release or furlough.

So criminals can magically be dismissed from mandatory ten-year sentences instead of the mandatory five-year sentences they currently get dismissed from. Sorry to be cynical, but this seems pretty damn useless to me.

BINGO! +511

[Brick]

As far as I can tell, this bill does nothing except change the “mandatory” minimum sentence from five years to ten years, when you look past the casual reordering of clauses.



So criminals can magically be dismissed from mandatory ten-year sentences instead of the mandatory five-year sentences they currently get dismissed from. Sorry to be cynical, but this seems pretty damn useless to me.

You're right on the first part

But on the second part, you're really confusing me, I see nothing in this bill that would allow a judge to sentence anyone committing an armed second offense violent crime to anything other than 10 or possibly more years in prison. Educate me. Where does the judge get that discretion, unless the judge is ignoring the law completely? In which case he shouldn't remain on the bench for very long.

This proposal covers the sentencing, not the charging and not the District Attorneys discretion to plea bargain, it only provides a minimum sentence the Judge must impose. At least as I understand it.

[JCWohlschlag]

But on the second part, you're really confusing me, I see nothing in this bill that would allow a judge to sentence anyone committing an armed second offense violent crime to anything other than 10 or possibly more years in prison. Educate me. Where does the judge get that discretion, unless the judge is ignoring the law completely? In which case he shouldn't remain on the bench for very long.

This proposal covers the sentencing, not the charging and not the District Attorneys discretion to plea bargain, it only provides a minimum sentence the Judge must impose. At least as I understand it.

You are correct. If a repeat armed violent criminal ever reaches a judge for sentencing under this statute, the judge will be forced to hand down sentence in accordance with this statute. However, as it stands right now with mandatory 5-year minimum sentences, far too many repeat offenders are plea bargained down to the point that the criminal is back on the street and committing yet another repeat offense in short order. If the current mandatory 5-year sentences aren’t being used to keep the violent criminals in prison, what good would increasing the prison time do?

[knight0334]

You are correct. If a repeat armed violent criminal ever reaches a judge for sentencing under this statute, the judge will be forced to hand down sentence in accordance with this statute. However, as it stands right now with mandatory 5-year minimum sentences, far too many repeat offenders are plea bargained down to the point that the criminal is back on the street and committing yet another repeat offense in short order. If the current mandatory 5-year sentences aren’t being used to keep the violent criminals in prison, what good would increasing the prison time do?

As a feel-good law that we, lawful gun owners and users, can concede as a "fair trade-off" to get a pro-gun bill passed.

Just look at most of the recent laws that have done good for us gun owners and carrying folks in the last 5-6 years. Each has had a feel-good or other concession as part of it that strengthened penalties for certain crimes or made other provisions that support the penalizing or control of offenses that are bad to begin with.

It wont affect us good people, but we can use it as leverage to get something that we want in return from the anti's in state Congress.

[Brick]

Snipped a bit to get to the good part:
However, as it stands right now with mandatory 5-year minimum sentences, far too many repeat offenders are plea bargained down to the point that the criminal is back on the street and committing yet another repeat offense in short order. If the current mandatory 5-year sentences aren’t being used to keep the violent criminals in prison, what good would increasing the prison time do?

OK but now we are talking about a different measure! This piece of legislation will become part of Title 42 which covers the way Judges hand out sentences (among other things). So if you want to make the changes you are implying are needed, the Gen'L A'ssy needs to go back to Title 18 and replace the word may with the word shall where ever may appears in the context of a penalty. Or perhaps a completely new code forbidding plea bargaining is needed to control the actions of the District Attorneys, or maybe a "three strikes and it's life" law.