Com. v. Rampolla, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 14, 2025
• Docket: 1090 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S45033-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ROBERT DAVID RAMPOLLA : : Appellant : No. 1090 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 1, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000382-2011

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MARCH 14, 2025

Robert David Rampolla appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following revocation of his probation and resentencing. He maintains the

court’s imposition of a 12-month period of reentry supervision pursuant to 61

Pa.C.S.A § 6137.2 is an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. We agree

and vacate that part of his sentence. The remaining parts of his sentence are

affirmed.

On August 2, 2013, Rampolla pleaded guilty to rape, aggravated

indecent assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful restraint,

simple assault, open lewdness, indecent assault, and indecent exposure.1

These crimes occurred in Lancaster County on November 20, 2010. Rampolla

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§3121, 3125, 3123(a), 2902, 2701(a)(2), 5901, 3126(a)(2), and 3127(b), respectively. J-S45033-24

was sentenced to five to 10 years’ incarceration, followed by 10 years’

probation.

While he was on probation, Rampolla was charged with sexual offenses

in Berks County that occurred on March 22, 2021. Rampolla pleaded guilty to

those charges, and was sentenced to six to 15 years’ incarceration, followed

by three years’ probation.

A violation of probation hearing was scheduled in Lancaster County for

February 2, 2024, but was continued to March 4, 2024. At the March 4, 2024

hearing, Rampolla stipulated to being in violation of his probation based on

his offenses in Berks County. N.T., 3/4/24, at 2. Sentencing was deferred and

a presentence investigation report was ordered. On July 1, 2024, the court

sentenced Rampolla to an aggregate sentence of five to 10 years’

incarceration, to be served consecutive to the Berks County sentence. N.T.,

7/1/24, at 20-21. The Commonwealth requested a one-year reentry

supervision probation tail pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S.A § 6137.2, and the court

imposed it. Id. at 22. This appeal followed.

Rampolla raises the following issue: “Did the trial court illegally impose

a [12]-month consecutive sentence of reentry supervision pursuant to 61

Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6137.2, where this sentence was a violation of the ex post facto

provisions of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?” Rampolla’s Br. at 5.

Rampolla argues the court erred in imposing a period of reentry

supervision as part of his sentence. He asserts that because his crimes and

-2- J-S45033-24

original imposition of sentence occurred prior to the effective date of Section

6137.2, imposition of the reentry requirement violated the ex post facto

clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Rampolla

maintains the portion of the sentencing order providing a 12-month reentry

supervision is an illegal sentence, and this Court must vacate that portion of

the sentence. We agree.

“[T]he determination as to whether the trial court imposed an illegal

sentence is a question of law; our standard of review in cases dealing with

questions of law is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Atanasio, 997 A.2d 1181,

1183 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted) (alteration in original).

“Article I, Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits the

enactment of any ex post facto law.” Commonwealth v. Carey, 249 A.3d

1217, 1228 (Pa.Super. 2021). “A criminal law is deemed ex post facto if two

critical elements are met: it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to

events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender

affected by it.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[C]entral

to the ex post facto prohibition is a concern for the lack of fair notice and

governmental restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond

what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.” Commonwealth v.

McGarry, 172 A.3d 60, 68 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted, emphasis

removed, alteration in original).

Section 6137.2, entitled “Reentry supervision,” provides:

-3- J-S45033-24

(a) General rule.--This section applies to persons committed to the department with an aggregate minimum sentence of total confinement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b) (relating to sentence of total confinement) of 4 years or more. Regardless of the sentence imposed, this section does not apply to persons sentenced to death, life imprisonment, persons otherwise ineligible for parole or persons subject to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.5 (relating to mandatory period of probation for certain sexual offenders).

(b) Reentry supervision.--Any person under subsection (a) shall be sentenced to a period of reentry supervision of 12 months consecutive to and in addition to any other lawful sentence issued by the court.

(c) Parole granted.--Persons who have been granted any period of parole by the parole board during the same period of incarceration shall be deemed to have served the requirements of this section.

(d) Supervision.--A person released to reentry supervision shall be considered to be released on parole.

(e) Imposition.--The court shall impose reentry supervision in addition to the maximum sentence permitted for the offense for which the defendant was convicted.

(f) Applicability.--This section shall only apply to persons sentenced after the effective date of this section.

61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6137.2. Thus, Section 6137.2 requires the court to impose a

mandatory 12-month period of reentry supervision in addition to any

aggregate sentence of four or more years’ imprisonment. Id. at § 6137.2(e).

The statute explicitly applies to defendants “sentenced after the effective

date,” which was December 18, 2019. Id. at § 6137.2(f).

This Court addressed the same issue raised in the present case in

Carey. There, the trial court sentenced Carey for acts he committed in

February 2019 and included a 12-month period of reentry supervision as part

-4- J-S45033-24

of the sentence pursuant to Section 6137.2. Carey, 249 A.3d at 1229. On

appeal, Carey argued the imposition of the reentry supervision was an

unconstitutional ex post facto punishment as applied to him. We agreed with

Carey and found that “[t]he court’s imposition of a 12-month period of reentry

supervision based upon Section 6137.2 constitute[d] an additional

punishment for acts he committed before the December 2019 enactment of

the statute.” Id. As a result, we vacated the provision of Carey’s sentence

imposing a 12-month period of reentry supervision. Id.

Here, because Rampolla’s criminal acts occurred prior to the effective

date of Section 6137.2 – December 18, 2019 – the trial court imposed an

illegal sentence. We note that the trial court agrees that the portion of

Rampolla’s sentence regarding the reentry supervision should be vacated. See

Opinion Sur Appeal, filed 9/9/24, at 1.2 Accordingly, we vacate the provision

of Rampolla’s sentence imposing a 12-month period of reentry supervision. In

all other respects, we affirm.3

Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

2 The Commonwealth did not file a responsive brief in this matter but submitted a letter stating that it was relying upon the trial court’s “thorough and well-reasoned Opinion Sur Appeal[.]” See Letter, dated 11/5/24.

3 Since our decision does not disturb the trial court’s sentencing scheme, we

need not remand for resentencing. See Carey, 249 A.3d at 1229 n.10.

-5- J-S45033-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 03/14/2025

-6-