Commonwealth v. Goins

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
867 A.2d 526, 2004 Pa. Super. 489, 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4935 (2004)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For sentencing purposes, offenses merge when the elements of one offense (the lesser-included offense) are a necessary subcomponent of the elements of another, greater offense. Theft by Unlawful Taking is a lesser-included offense of Theft by Deception because it does not require the additional element of deception.

Facts:

A company, Kingdom, Inc., was informed that a DVD duplicating machine was purchased with a credit card and addressed to a 'Kenneth Coleman' at a Philadelphia address.
The company learned that the real Kenneth Coleman resided in Houston, Texas, and notified Postal Inspector William Cobb.
On May 5, 2003, Inspector Cobb, disguised as a letter carrier, conducted a controlled delivery of the package to the Philadelphia address.
Dominic Goins answered the door and, when told the package was for Kenneth Coleman, claimed to be Coleman's nephew.
Goins signed for the package in his own name, adding the word 'nephew' next to his signature.
After being arrested, Goins admitted to Inspector Cobb that he was not related to Kenneth Coleman and had accepted the package for a friend named 'Stan.'

Procedural Posture:

Dominic Goins was charged with Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition and Theft by Deception.
Following a bench trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Goins was found guilty on both counts.
The trial court sentenced Goins to two consecutive terms of two years probation.
Goins (Appellant) appealed his judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the offenses of Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition and Theft by Deception merge for sentencing purposes when they arise from the same criminal act?

Opinions:

Majority - Stevens, J.

Yes. The offenses of Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition and Theft by Deception merge for sentencing because the former is a lesser-included offense of the latter. Applying the test from Commonwealth v. Anderson, the court determined whether the elements of the lesser offense are a necessary subcomponent of the greater offense, and whether the greater offense contains at least one additional element. The court found that the elements of Theft by Unlawful Taking (unlawfully taking property of another with intent to deprive) are entirely subsumed within the elements of Theft by Deception (intentionally obtaining property of another by deception). Specifically, any act that satisfies the intent to permanently deprive for unlawful taking would also satisfy the intentional obtaining element for theft by deception. Theft by Deception, however, requires an additional element not found in Theft by Unlawful Taking: deception. Because all elements of the first crime are contained within the second, and the second crime has an additional element, Theft by Unlawful Taking is a lesser-included offense of Theft by Deception, and the convictions must merge for sentencing.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms Pennsylvania's adherence to the 'elements test' established in Commonwealth v. Anderson for determining when criminal offenses merge for sentencing. By rejecting the plurality's 'break-in-the-chain' test from Commonwealth v. Gatling, the court provides a clear and predictable framework for lower courts. The ruling clarifies that one offense is a lesser-included of another if its statutory elements are fully contained within the greater offense, preventing the imposition of cumulative punishments for a single criminal act that technically violates multiple statutes.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Goins (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature