COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH DERHAMMER (2017)

CONCURRING OPINION

I join the Majority in full. I write separately to note that this issue arises from our Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). Therein, we held that Act 152 of 2004 was unconstitutional under the Single Subject Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and its various subparts were not severable. Neiman, 84 A.3d at 613, 615-16.

The Superior Court's opinion in Neiman concluded that Act 152 violated the Single Subject Clause but reached the opposite conclusion as to severance. Commonwealth v. Neiman, 5 A.3d 353, 358-60 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc), rev'd, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). As a judge on the Superior Court, I joined that opinion in full, and continue to believe that this Court's opinion in Neiman was incorrectly decided on the question of severance. Nevertheless, accepting Neiman's severance analysis as binding, I agree with the Majority that the Superior Court's judgment in this case cannot stand. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE MUNDY