Com. v. Daniels, R.

Opinion

J-S23021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RACQUEL DANIELS : : Appellant : No. 1725 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 3, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010305-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2023

Racquel Daniels appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after

he violated probation. The parties and the trial court agree that the case

should be remanded to determine Daniels’ eligibility for the Recidivism Risk

Reduction Incentive (RRRI) program. After review, we vacate and remand.

In 2019, Daniels received a three-year probationary sentence following

his guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver. 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

While on probation, Daniels pled guilty to other crimes; this violated his

probation. The trial court held a violation hearing and sentenced Daniels to

five to ten years of imprisonment. The court did not determine if Daniels was

RRRI eligible. Daniels moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

Daniels timely appealed. He argues that his sentence is illegal because

the trial court failed to find him RRRI eligible and failed to impose an RRRI

minimum sentence. Daniels’ Brief at 3–11. J-S23021-23

The trial court acknowledges that Daniels’ sentence is illegal because it

did not determine his RRRI eligibility. Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/22, at 11–

12. The Commonwealth agrees that remand is appropriate. Commonwealth’s

Brief at 5–6.

A challenge to the failure to order an RRRI minimum sentence implicates

sentencing legality. Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 249 A.3d 903, 912 (Pa.

Super. 2021). It is a question of law, for which we use a de novo standard of

review and a plenary scope of review. Commonwealth v. Perzel, 291 A.3d

38, 45 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).

In imposing a sentence, a court is required to determine if the defendant

is eligible for RRRI. Finnecy, 249 A.3d at 912 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9756(b.1)); accord 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a). This depends on whether the

defendant meets the statutory definition of “eligible person.” Finnecy, 249

A.3d at 913–14 (citing 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503). The failure to make this

determination renders the sentence illegal. See Commonwealth v.

Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 874–75 (Pa. Super. 2010).

Here, the trial court did not determine whether Daniels is an “eligible

person.” 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503. Therefore, his sentence is illegal. Robinson,

7 A.3d at 875. Accordingly, we vacate Daniels’ judgment of sentence and

remand for the trial court to determine whether Daniels is RRRI eligible and,

if he is eligible, to impose the RRRI minimum sentence. Id.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

-2- J-S23021-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/6/2023

-3-