Com. v. Herring, A.
This text of Com. v. Herring, A. (Com. v. Herring, A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S25027-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANDRE B. HERRING : : Appellant : No. 2041 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 23, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012419-2009, CP-51-CR-0012797-2009, CP-51-CR-0015763-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and FORD ELLIOT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2017
Appellant, Andre B. Herring, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
ten to twenty years of imprisonment followed by ten years of probation,
imposed on July 23, 2012, following his open plea to two counts of
burglary,1 one count of attempted burglary, 2 and one count of conspiracy.3
We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
Defendant, Andre Herring, has appealed nunc pro tunc from the July 23, 2012, order of this [c]ourt imposing judgment of sentence. On July 23, 2012, defendant appeared before this [c]ourt and entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to various charges pursuant, inter alia, to the above bill and term numbers. ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 901 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 903 J-S25027-17
As of CP-51-CR-0012419-2009, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of burglary and received a sentence of ten to twenty- years’ incarceration. As of CP-51-CR-0012797-2009, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and received a sentence of ten to twenty years’ incarceration, which sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed as of CP-51-CR- 0012419-2009. Finally, as of CP-51-CR-00157763-2009, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of attempted burglary and received a sentence of two to four years’ incarceration, which sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on the other two charges. When imposing [the] sentence, this [c]ourt ordered that defendant should receive credit for time served. Defendant filed neither a post- sentence motion nor a notice of appeal following the imposition of sentence.
On March 11, 2013, defendant filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9741 et seq. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant and on March 27, 2015, counsel filed an amended petition requesting that defendant be granted the right to file a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence nunc pro tunc. On May 26, 2016, this [c]ourt issued an order granting defendant the right to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgments of sentence and denying him the right to file post-sentence motions. Defendant filed notice of appeal on June 22, 2016, followed by a court-ordered 1925(b) statement.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/21/16, at 1-2.4
The trial court issued a responsive opinion. On appeal, Appellant
raises the following issues for review:
I. Should [A]ppellant’s sentence be vacated and the case be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with direction that Appellant be afforded an opportunity to file a nunc pro tunc petition to withdraw his guilty plea?
____________________________________________
4 The trial court opinion omits any reference to the conspiracy charge, docketed at CP-51-CR-0012419-2009.
-2- J-S25027-17
II. Should [A]ppellant’s case be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with direction that Appellant be afforded an opportunity to file a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion challenging the legality of his sentence?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant’s first claim challenges the validity of his guilty plea.
Appellant does not dispute that he failed to file timely a post-sentence
motion to withdraw his plea. However, Appellant asserts that the lower
court failed to advise him that a motion was required in order to preserve his
challenge. According to Appellant, this failure renders his plea unknowing
and involuntary. Appellant seeks remand so that he may be permitted to file
a petition to withdraw his plea nunc pro tunc.
Written post-sentence motions shall be filed no later than ten days
after the imposition of sentence. Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613
(Pa. Super. 2004); Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1). Failure to file a post-sentence
motion will result in waiver. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kinney, ---
A.3d ---, *5 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding that issues arising from a plea
were waived because the defendant failed to preserve them in a post-
sentence motion). A PCRA court may reinstate a petitioner’s right to file
post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc, provided the petitioner may plead and
prove “that he was deprived of the right to file and litigate said motions as a
result of the ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Liston,
977 A.2d 1089, 1094 n.9 (Pa. 2009).
-3- J-S25027-17
In his PCRA petition, Appellant sought only to reinstate his direct
appeal rights nunc pro tunc; he made no request to reinstate his right to file
post-trial motions and thus challenge the validity of his guilty plea.
Appellant’s claim is therefore waived. See Liston, 977 A.2d at 1094;
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 851 A.2d 883, 889 (Pa. 2004) (“Claims not
raised in the PCRA court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal in this Court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).”).
Appellant’s next claim is that this case should be remanded to afford
Appellant the opportunity to file a nunc pro tunc motion challenging the
legality of his sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 11. According to Appellant, the
sentencing court failed to properly calculate his time credit. Id.
Challenges to the legality of a sentence cannot be waived.
Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d 95, 98 (Pa. 2007) (“[I]f the
sentence clearly implicates the legality of sentence, whether it was properly
preserved below is of no moment, as a challenge to the legality of sentence
cannot be waived.”). A challenge to the failure to award credit for time
served prior to sentencing does involve the legality of the sentence and as
such cannot be waived. See Commonwealth v. Beck, 848 A.2d 987, 989
(Pa. Super. 2004) (“An appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s failure to
award credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing involves the
legality of sentence.”).
-4- J-S25027-17
However, here it appears that Appellant’s contention is with the
computation of his time credit. This Court is not the appropriate venue for
challenging the computation of time.
If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s computation. If, on the other hand, the alleged error is thought to be attributable to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Herring, A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-herring-a-pasuperct-2017.