Commonwealth v. Swift

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the unit of prosecution under the arson-endangering-property statute is each act of arson, rather than each endangered or damaged property. Because James Michael Swift set only one fire, the court concluded that the trial court improperly imposed separate consecutive sentences for two arson-endangering-property convictions, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The unit of prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c)(2) is each act of arson, not each damaged building or occupied structure.
2. The trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for Swift's two arson-endangering-property convictions because both convictions arose from a single act of setting a fire.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the unit of prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(c)(2), arson-endangering property, is each act of arson or each damaged building or occupied structure.
2. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by imposing separate consecutive sentences for two arson-endangering-property convictions arising from one act of setting a fire.

Disposition

vacated