laws of this Commonwealth in effect at the time of the commission of that offense, or an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction. ¶ 9 In Commonwealth v. Chiari, 741 A.2d 770 (Pa.Super.1999), this Court examined the mandatory minimum provision of Section 9712 and concluded that the Section appli[es] to accomplices who did not visibly possess a firearm during the commission of the crime or crimes in question. Pennsylvania law is clear that a sentencing court must apply the provision ' of [Ejection 9712 to an unarmed accomplice who had knowledge that his co-felon visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the joint crimes. Chiari, 741 A.2d at 776 (emphasis in original). See Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 Pa.Super. 626, 563 A.2d 905 (1989), affirmed, 528 Pa. 380, 598 A.2d 268 (1991) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 10 In the case sub judice, Reeves pleaded
holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding that a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provision applies if the defendant knew that his accomplice possessed a firearm and used it during the commission of the crime holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory