[J-114-2020][M.O. – Mundy, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 2 WAP 2020
:
Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the Superior
: Court entered 4/17/19 at No. 998 WDA
: 2018, affirming the order of the Court of
v. : Common Pleas of Venango County
: entered 6/19/18 at Nos. CP-61-CR-
: 0000498-2013 and CP-61-CR-0000688-
: 2009
JAMES PAUL FINNECY, :
:
Appellant : SUBMITTED: November 17, 2020
CONCURRING OPINION
JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: APRIL 29, 2021
I join the majority opinion and write only to note my misgivings about its
determination that Appellant’s claim relates to sentence illegality for waiver purposes
based on a generalized premise that the sentencing court lacked the authority to
impose it. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 12. Some of my concerns with this Court’s
expanding definition of sentence illegality (for waiver purposes) are spelled out in my
responsive opinion in Commonwealth v. Moore, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___, 2021 WL
1133063 (March 25, 2021); see id. at ___, ___ A.3d at ___, 2021 WL 1133063 at *7-9
(Saylor, C.J., concurring); see also Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41, 17
A.3d 332, 355-56 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring), and I view this case as embodying one
more such expansion. With that said, the analysis in Moore with which I differed
garnered majority support and, as such, it is now binding precedent. Moreover,
although Moore involved a facial constitutional challenge, whereas the present case
entails an as-applied challenge based on a claim of incorrect statutory interpretation,
this, in my view, is not a material distinction insofar as the authority-based rationale of
Moore is concerned. Accordingly, as I am bound by the majority view in Moore – and
as I agree with the present majority’s substantive reading of the Recidivism Risk
Reduction Act – I join the majority opinion.
[J-114-2020][M.O. – Mundy, J.] - 2