Com. v. Reed, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 2202 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S23004-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAHEEM REED : : Appellant : No. 2202 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0006144-2023

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2025

Appellant, Raheem Reed, appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed on April 15, 2024, by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County. He challenges the grading of his conviction for unlawful contact. As

all parties agree that Appellant is entitled to relief, we vacate the judgment of

sentence and remand for resentencing.

The facts are not in dispute. Following a non-jury trial, Appellant was

convicted of unlawful contact with a minor, graded as a felony of a second

degree, and corruption of minors. He was found not guilty of the remaining

nine charges. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate two to four

years’ imprisonment, followed by three consecutive years of probation.

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied by operation of law.

This appeal followed. On appeal, Appellant argues that the grading of his

unlawful contact conviction should be a felony of the third degree in J-S23004-25

accordance with 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318(b) because he was not convicted of the

underlying offense of solicitation – sexual abuse of children (photographing,

videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual acts). See Appellant’s

Brief, at 1.

“A claim that the court improperly graded an offense for sentencing

purposes implicates the legality of a sentence.” Commonwealth v.

Mendozajr, 71 A.3d 1023, 1027 (Pa. Super. 2013). Section 6318 provides:

(a) Offense defined.—A person commits an offense if he is intentionally in contact with a minor . . . for the purpose of engaging in an activity prohibited under any of the following[:]

(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses).

****

(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312 (relating to sexual abuse of children).

(b) Grading.—A violation of subsection (a) is:

(1) an offense of the same grade and degree as the most serious underlying offense in subsection (a) for which the defendant contacted the minor; or

(2) a felony of the third degree

whichever is greater.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318 (effective Jan. 1, 2007 to Feb. 11, 2024).

Here, Appellant was charged under Subsection 6318(a)(1). The

Commonwealth did not charge Appellant separately with an offense under

-2- J-S23004-25

Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses). As such, the grading of the

conviction should be a felony of the third degree. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

6318(b)(2). Although the Commonwealth charged Appellant with sexual

abuse of children, he was not charged with Subsection 6318(a)(5). Even if

Appellant was charged under Subsection 6318(a)(5), he was acquitted of the

underlying offense; therefore, the grading of unlawful contact would be a

felony of the third degree. See Commonwealth v. Pope, 216 A.3d 299, 306

(Pa. Super. 2019) (where Appellant is acquitted of an underlying offense

enumerated in 6318(a), the appropriate grading of unlawful contact is the

default felony of the third degree).

In either scenario, Appellant’s conviction for unlawful contact should be

a felony of the third degree. Both the trial court and the Commonwealth

agree. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for

resentencing.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Remand for resentencing. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Date: 10/10/2025

-3-