Commonwealth, Aplt v. Spruill, S. (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-34-2012][M.O. Castille, C.J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. SHONDA SPRUILL, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 54 EAP 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 12/31/09 at No. 3193 EDA 2008, (reargument denied on 3/8/10) vacating and remanding the Judgment of Sentence entered on 10/7/08 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-51-CR-0012637-2007, CP51-CR-0012638-2007 and CP-51-CR0012639 SUBMITTED: February 15, 2012 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: November 22, 2013 I join the majority opinion for the most part, although I differ with the notion that the legality of a sentence is wholly independent of the legality of the underlying conviction. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 14-15. Since a conviction is the essential supporting infrastructure for a sentence, I suggest that illegality with respect to the former extends to the latter as well. Cf. Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228-29, 121 S. Ct. 712, 714 (2001) (per curiam) (holding that a conviction for conduct which was not prohibited by a statute, as properly interpreted by a subsequent decision, violates due process, despite previous litigation of claim on direct appeal). The alternative is for courts to accept as legal a sentence which is grounded upon an illegal conviction. From my point of view, the difficulty in this line of inquiry lies in establishing an appropriate understanding of the use of the term illegality, for the relevant purposes. See generally Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41, 17 A.3d 332, 355-57 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring) (favoring a return to the concept of per se illegality as the appropriate litmus). Certainly, I support the majority s explanation that routine claims of trial-court error and fact-bound challenges cannot qualify; otherwise, the public interest in the finality of judgments of sentence would be wholly undermined. Accord id. Furthermore, in the present case, I am in agreement with the majority that Appellee s grievance as vindicated by the Superior Court is of a type which is fairly subordinated to ordinary rules of issue preservation. [J-34-2012][M.O. Castille, C.J.] - 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.
