Comm., Aplt v. Belak (Concurring Statement)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-117-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : GEORGE R. BELAK, : : Appellee : : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : GEORGE R. BELAK, : : Appellant : No. 91 WAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered December 5, 2000, at No1009WDA1999, vacating the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Criminal Division, entered June 4, 1999, at Nos. 3698, 3699 C 1998, and remanding. ARGUED: September 9, 2002 No. 92 WAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated December 5, 2000, at No1009WDA1999, vacating the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Criminal Division, entered June 4, 1999, at Nos. 3698, 3699 C 1998, and remanding. ARGUED: September 9, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: JUNE 17, 2003 I join the Majority Opinion. The Majority correctly holds that the three-strikes provision, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9714(a)(2), does not violate a defendant s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under this Court s holding in Commonwealth v. Butler, 760 A.2d 384 (Pa. 2000), because, unlike the two-strikes provision in subsection (a)(1), subsection (a)(2) does not require a defendant to rebut a presumption that he is a high risk dangerous offender. In so holding, the Majority recognizes the very point that was the subject of my Dissenting Statement in Commonwealth v. Eddings, 772 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2001), which Madame Justice Newman joined. As I noted in Eddings, the plain language of subsection (a)(2) commands that offenders who have been convicted of two or more separate crimes of violence receive a minimum of 25 years of total confinement, notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. See Pa. C.S. § 9714(a)(2). Unlike the two-strikes provision, subsection (a)(2) is unconditional: It contains no requirement of an additional finding of high risk dangerous offender for the mandatory sentence to apply. Since the Court has come around to the view I espoused in Eddings, I join. [J-117-2002] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
