Com. v. Czyzewski, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 1140 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S43021-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JONATHAN RYAN CZYZEWSKI : : Appellant : No. 1140 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 19, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No: CP-09-CR-0005942-2023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2025

Appellant, Jonathan Ryan Czyzewski, appeals from the March 19, 2024

judgment of sentence imposing an aggregate 60 days of non-reporting

probation for disorderly conduct (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4)) and harassment

(18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1)). The trial court also ordered Appellant to undergo

a mental health evaluation and write a letter of apology to the victim. The

letter of apology, which the Appellant claims was an illegal shaming sentence,

is the subject of this appeal. After careful review, we affirm.

The convictions arose from an incident, captured on surveillance

footage, in which Appellant spat on an employee of a convenience store. The

trial court summarized the facts as follows:

From the video, the court was able to see [Appellant] enter the Shell gas station store to purchase a pack of cigarettes. The Shell gas station store includes counter with cash registers, several aisles of goods for sale, a coffee bar, and a Subway J-S43021-24

sandwich bar. The Subway sandwich bar includes a hot and cold counter with a glass top where all the ingredients for Subway sandwiches are held. [The victim] was working behind the Subway counter when [Appellant] came into the store. The court observed [Appellant] complete his purchase then walk toward the Subway sandwich counter and spit on [the victim]. After spitting on [the victim], [Appellant] exits the store, gets into a motor vehicle, and drives away.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/24/24, at 2 (record citations omitted).

The Commonwealth filed charges on August 15, 2023. At a January 29,

2024 pretrial conference, the disorderly conduct charge was amended to a

summary offense. The trial court conducted a summary bench trial on March

19, 2024, and found Appellant guilty of both offenses. This timely appeal

followed. The only issue before us is the legality of the portion of Appellant’s

sentence requiring him to write a letter of apology. Appellant’s Brief at 4.

A challenge to the legality of the sentence presents a question of law for

which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa. Super. 2014), affirmed,

140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016). “If no statutory authorization exists for a particular

sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction.” Commonwealth

v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2006). “A challenge to the

legality of a sentence is essentially a claim that the trial court did not have

jurisdiction to impose the sentence that it handed down…. A trial court

ordinarily has jurisdiction to impose any sentence which is within the range of

punishments which the legislature has authorized for the defendant’s crimes.”

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 52 (Pa. 2014) (internal quotation

-2- J-S43021-24

marks omitted). An illegal sentence must be vacated. Wolfe, 106 A.3d at

801.

The Pennsylvania Judicial Code governs the imposition of probation

conditions.

(b) Conditions generally.--Conditions shall be assessed and ordered based on individualized circumstances. Following an individualized assessment of the defendant, including the defendant's history and the underlying crime or crimes committed, the court shall attach only those conditions that the court deems necessary and the least restrictive means available to promote the defendant’s rehabilitation and protection of the public, including any of the following:

[…]

(15) To do other things reasonably related to rehabilitation.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9763(b)(15).

In Melvin, the trial court relied on § 9763(b)(15) to require the

defendant to issue letters of apology. Id. at 53. There, as here, the defendant

argued that the letters of apology amounted to a shaming sentence. This

Court concluded that court-imposed letters of apology are permissible under

§ 9763(b)(15), reasoning that they forced the defendant to acknowledge the

harm caused by her actions, and to accept responsibility for causing that

harm. Id. at 54-55. In these respects, the condition was tailored to the goal

of rehabilitation. Id. But the Melvin Court held that the trial court

overstepped its authority under § 9763(b)(15) insofar as it required the

defendant to write the letters of apology on a picture of herself in handcuffs.

In that respect, the condition did not serve the goal of rehabilitation, but

-3- J-S43021-24

instead served to humiliate and shame the defendant and thus was punitive

in effect. As such, the requirement that the apology letter be written on a

photograph of the defendant in handcuffs was not authorized under

§ 9763(b)(15) and therefore illegal. Id. at 55-56.

Here, as in Melvin, the trial court ordered Appellant to write a letter of

apology to the victim. Per Melvin, that condition is permissible under

§ 9763(b)(15), insofar as it facilitates the perpetrator’s acknowledgement of

the harm caused and acceptance of responsibility therefor. Absent from the

instant sentencing order is anything designed to shame or humiliate Appellant.

Appellant argues that the letter of apology causes him shame and humiliation

based on his testimony, at sentencing, that he suffers from schizophrenia and

hears voices. Appellant claims he heard the victim accuse him of pedophilia

and then confronted the victim.

In rejecting Appellant’s argument, the trial court reasoned that the

rationale in Melvin applies here. Despite the surveillance footage of the

crime, Appellant continued to deny at sentencing that he spat on the victim.

By writing an apology letter, Appellant will be forced to accept responsibility

for his action and acknowledge the harm he caused. The trial court

acknowledged Appellant’s mental health struggles, and thus did not order

community service. The court concluded that a letter of apology would serve

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs better than community service. Trial Court

Opinion, 5/24/24, at 4-5. And regarding Appellant’s assertion that he was

-4- J-S43021-24

provoked—or at least believed incorrectly that he was provoked—the trial

court was free to discredit that testimony, given the court’s review of the

surveillance footage.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has failed to establish that the

letter of apology imposed as a condition of his probation amounted to an illegal

shaming sentence. We conclude that the letter was a lawful exercise of

sentencing authority under § 9763(b)(15). Because the only argument

Appellant raises on appeal lacks merit, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 4/14/2025

-5-