Commonwealth v. Finnecy, J., Aplt. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-114-2020][M.O. – Mundy, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JAMES PAUL FINNECY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2 WAP 2020 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 4/17/19 at No. 998 WDA 2018, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County entered 6/19/18 at Nos. CP-61-CR0000498-2013 and CP-61-CR-00006882009 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

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.