Up the case goes to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Court ruled that an F-2 burglary does not involve the risk of violence or injury to another person: rather it is an offense against property rights of the owner of the property in question.
Burglary can only be considered a crime of violence if the structure involved is adapted for overnight accommodations in which, at the time of the offense, any person is present. Therefore, the Court ruled that an F-2 burglary cannot be evidence of past violent behavior under the recidivism statute and overruled the sentencing judge’s term of imprisonment.
This illustrates how technical Statutes and interpretations of Statutes are today. Sometimes the difference between a very long criminal sentence and a relatively short one hangs on the interpretation of a few words in the Crimes Code.
What do you think of this decision? Was it the right one?