applied. 4 . Appellant would have been subject to a sentence of no more than twenty years of imprisonment on the kidnapping conviction had he not been subjected to the enhanced penalties authorized by Section 9714. 5 . We ruled an unrelated portion of this statute to be unconstitutional in Commonwealth v. Butler, 563 Pa. 324, 760 A.2d 384 (2000), on procedural due process grounds. 6 . We note that Section 102 of Title 42, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, defines "court” to include "any one or more of the judges of the court who are authorized by general rule or rule of court, or by law or usage, to exercise the powers of the court in the name of the court.” It is clear that "court” does not also mean "jury.” See Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co., 573 Pa. 267, 274-75, 824 A.2d 1153, 1157 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 7 .See note 1, supra. 8 . Judge Todd filed a
holding that the most common definition of a word does not preclude other accepted alternatives holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted holding that purpose of the amendment was to clarify the definition of the word maintain holding that the judicial codes definition of court is limited to the role of judges and for purposes of the statute the word does not also include jury within its ambit holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons