Com. v. Johnson, I.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 2801 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Lazarus

Opinion

J-A30004-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : IKEE JOHNSON : : Appellant : No. 2801 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 20, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007766-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MARCH 5, 2026

Ikee Johnson appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his convictions for

persons not to possess a firearm,1 carrying a firearm without a license,2 and

carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia without a license. 3 After

review, we affirm.

Johnson was arrested and charged with the above offenses after he gave

consent to a police officer to search his bag, wherein the officer found, inter

alia, a “loaded, nine-millimeter handgun[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/25, at

3. As Johnson had previously been convicted of possession with intent to ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).

2 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

3 Id. at § 6108. J-A30004-25

distribute,4 he was subject to subsection 6105(a)’s prohibition of possession

of a firearm by individuals with certain prior convictions. On February 20,

2024, the trial court found Johnson guilty of the above-mentioned firearm

offenses after a stipulated bench trial.

On May 1, 2024, prior to sentencing, Johnson filed a motion for

judgment of acquittal on the persons not to possess charge. In the motion,

Johnson averred that the trial court should enter a judgment of acquittal or

otherwise dismiss the persons not to possess charge because section 6105

was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, under the Second and

Fourteenth Amendments. See Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, 5/1/24, at

1-5.

On August 20, 2024, without having ruled on Johnson’s motion for

judgment of acquittal, the trial court sentenced Johnson to concurrent

sentences of 11½ to 23 months of house arrest for carrying a firearm without

a license, six years of probation for prohibited possession of a firearm, and

five years of probation for carrying a firearm in Philadelphia without a license.

On August 29, 2024, Johnson filed a post-sentence motion requesting a ruling

on his May 1, 2024 motion for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied

the May 1, 2024 motion for judgment of acquittal on September 25, 2024.

____________________________________________

4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

-2- J-A30004-25

Johnson timely5 appealed from his judgment of sentence on October 10,

2024. Both Johnson and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Johnson raises one issue for our review: “Should the conviction [under

section] 6105 be vacated because the statute as applied to [Johnson]’s prior

conviction for possession with intent to deliver, a non-violent offense, violates

the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?” Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

We need not address Johnson’s claim in depth, as this Court’s recent

decision in Commonwealth v. Randolph, 343 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2025),

is dispositive. In Randolph, we addressed a constitutional challenge to

subsection 6105(a), wherein the petitioner argued that there was no historical

tradition supporting a regulation that prohibited individuals with prior non-

violent convictions from possessing a firearm. Id. at 1256–57. Applying the

test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S.

1 (2022),6 we concluded that the challenged regulation was “consistent with

the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation[,]” and, thus,

constitutional under the Second Amendment. Randolph, 343 A.3d at 1258.

5 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(b) (notice of appeal must be filed within thirty

days of entry of order denying post-sentence motion).

6 In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court set forth the analysis for determining whether a challenged regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment, which requires determining whether the regulation “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 24.

-3- J-A30004-25

Because we previously considered and rejected in Randolph the

arguments Johnson now raises, he is entitled to no relief. 7 Accordingly, we

affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/5/2026

7 See Commonwealth v. Sumpter, 340 A.3d 977, 983 (Pa. Super. 2025)

(three-judge panel of Superior Court is bound by its previous precedential decisions).

-4-