HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001335-2009
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
vs. : CP-21-CR-1335-2009
:
:
RONALD EDWARD ARMOLT :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
The defendant in this case has filed an appeal from a conviction on a charge of Persons
Not to Possess Firearms. The charge was filed as a result of an incident that occurred on
December 31, 2008. On that date, two Pennsylvania State Troopers arrived at the defendant’s
residence on Graham’s Wood Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, to respond to an unrelated matter.
The troopers were invited inside. (Transcript of Nonjury Trial Proceedings, October 13, 2010, at
13, 49; hereinafter “N.T. __”). Upon entering the residence, Trooper Mark Gray immediately
noticed a scoped rifle standing in the corner of the room. (N.T. 14). After defendant granted
their request to search the second floor, the troopers proceeded upstairs and seized a small
quantity of marijuana and a smoking pipe which the defendant had attempted to hide in the trash.
(N. T. 49). Two additional firearms were found in a closet accessible from the defendant’s
bedroom. Both of these were shotguns. The defendant admitted that he had possessed the
weapons that were found, claiming that they were family heirlooms belonging to his deceased
brother and father.
The defendant, Ronald Armolt, had been convicted of Burglary in 1982 and of Persons
Not to Possess a Firearm in 1989. The State Police, having learned that defendant’s prior
criminal record prohibited him from possessing weapons, seized the rifle and two shotguns
which they had found in the defendant’s residence. (N.T. 17). The defendant, in the meantime,
had asked the troopers if he could keep the guns so that he could sell them to pay for heating oil
for the winter, claiming that he did not realize that he was not supposed to have them. This was
the defense which the defendant advanced at the trial of this case; namely, that he believed that,
while he was not allowed to buy weapons, he was not aware that his possession of these firearms
1
was unlawful.
The relevant statutory law is found in Title 18, Section 6105 of Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes Annotated. In Section 6105(a)(1), the crime of Persons Not to Possess
Firearms is defined in pertinent part, as follows:
A person who has been convicted of an offense
enumerated in subsection (b), within or without
this Commonwealth … shall not possess, use,
control, sell, transfer or manufacture … a firearm
in this Commonwealth.
18 Pa.C.S. 6105(a)(1). Included in the list of enumerated offenses under subsection (b) is
Section 3505 relating to burglary. 18 Pa.C.S. 6105(b). In order for the Commonwealth to
establish a case for Persons Not to Possess Firearms, it must demonstrate that the accused was in
possession of a firearm and was previously convicted of one of the offenses listed in the statute.
See Commonwealth v. Williams, 911 A.2d 548, 550-51 (Pa.Super. 2006). Nowhere in the statute
is there a suggestion that the Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant was aware that
his possession of firearms was unlawful. “It is an unquestionable principle, which applies to
civil as well as criminal cases, that ignorance of law will not furnish an excuse for any person,
either for a breach or omission of duty.” Martachowski v. Orawitz, 14 Pa.Super. 175, 177
(Pa.Super. 1900). That ignorance of the law is no excuse is so well established as to be referred
1
Defendant’s prior conviction on a firearm charge arose from his attempt to purchase a firearm.
2
to as a “maxim.” See Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20, 29 (Pa. 2001). Notwithstanding,
that is precisely the defense that the defendant posits in this case.
To reiterate, in order for the Commonwealth to successfully establish that the defendant
was guilty of the charge sub judice, they must demonstrate (1) that he knowingly possessed a
firearm, and (2) that he had been previously convicted of one of the listed felonies. In the case at
bar, the defendant admitted that he knew there were firearms in his house. In addition, it is
undisputed that the defendant was convicted of burglary in 1982. A verdict of not guilty in this
case would have been nothing short of irrational.
In the end, the defendant was given the benefit of his purported ignorance of the law at
the time of sentence. He received a probationary sentence under circumstances where the
sentencing guidelines called for several years of incarceration in a state penitentiary. Given the
enormous benefit of the doubt which the defendant received at the time of sentencing, we find
his appeal of the underlying conviction somewhat mystifying.
March 23, 2011 __________________________
Kevin A. Hess, P.J.
Matthew P. Smith, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Stephen R. Maitland, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
3