Com. v. Sims-El, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 22, 2018·No. 669 EDA 2017·Unpublished

Opinion

J-S72007-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ADRIAN SIMS-EL, Appellant No. 669 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 8, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0008238-2007

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 22, 2018 Appellant, Adrian Sims-El, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence imposed on January 8, 2016, after his previous terms of probation and parole were revoked. We affirm.

Briefly, in September of 2008, Appellant pled guilty to statutory sexual assault and was sentenced in July of 2009 to a term of incarceration of 6 to 23 months, plus one year probation. He did not file a direct appeal. In August of 2009, Appellant was released on parole. Approximately one year later, in June of 2010, he was found to be in possession of child pornography, which constituted a violation of his parole/probation. Accordingly, he was arrested on June 7, 2010. In September of 2010,

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S72007-17

criminal charges were filed against Appellant in Philadelphia County. Due to the pendency of those charges, as well as other delays, Appellant’s parole/probation revocation hearing was not conducted until January of 2016, at which time his parole/probation were revoked and he was resentenced to serve a term of 393 days of ‘back time’ incarceration, plus a consecutive term of 2 to 8 years’ incarceration.

Appellant did not file a timely appeal from his judgment of sentence, but ultimately sought, and was granted, leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal. He filed a nunc pro tunc notice of appeal on February 16, 2017, and he also filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, despite not being ordered by the court to do so. The court filed a responsive opinion on June 15, 2017. Herein, Appellant presents one issue for our review:

I. The revocation hearing that took place was not timely.

[Appellant] was incarcerated from June 7, 2010 and the revocation did not occur until January 8, 2016. The original sentence imposed was six (6) to twenty[-]three (23) months followed by one year probation. Once [Appellant] reached the maximum, the detainer should have been lifted and the violations dismissed.

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough and well- crafted opinion of the Honorable George A. Pagano of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. We have also considered the “Case Timeline” created by Judge Pagano and attached to his opinion as “Exhibit A.” We

J-S72007-17

conclude that Judge Pagano’s extensive, well-reasoned opinion and case timeline accurately set forth the procedural history of this case,1 and correctly dispose of the issue presented by Appellant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Pagano’s opinion and timeline as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on that basis.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/22/18

1 Appellant seemingly takes issue with the trial court’s statement that a Gagnon I hearing was held on June 22, 2010. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (holding that due process requires a determination at a pre-revocation hearing, i.e., a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe a violation has been committed). See also Appellant’s Brief at 9 (“The Commonwealth represented and the [c]ourt echoed that a Gagnon I [h]earing was held on June 22, 2010. In fact, it was not.”). While there is no transcript of the June 22, 2010 hearing contained in the certified record, the trial court’s docket demonstrates that a hearing was conducted on that date, and it was determined at that proceeding that Appellant would be held for a Gagnon II hearing. Appellant does not seem to dispute any other dates set forth in the trial court’s opinion or e timeline.

Cirukted 097tit 5'72 0 0 7-1

3,1- iLip la

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-23-CR-000823&2007 vs.

ADRIAN SIMS-EL

Michael R. Galantino, Esquire, Attorney for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Scott D. Galloway, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant

OPINION

PAGANO, J. Filed: June 15, 2017

This is a Nunc Pro Tune Direct Appeal from the Court's Judgment of Sentence entered on January 8, 2016. Adrian Sims -El, hereinafter "Defendant," argues that he is entitled to relief after the court found him in violation of his probation and parole at the conclusion of a Gagnon II Hearing, and imposed a new sentence, The Defendant claims the Court erred by (1) holding an un-timely Hearing, (2)

holding a Hearing despite the Defendant not having been provided with a written notice of his violations, (3) failing to place in writing or otherwise state the reasons for revoking probation, (4) considering during the Hearing arguments regarding the Defendant's 2006 criminal charges in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and (5) revoking the Defendant's probation based on a condition that had not been previously imposed by the court. The Defendant's contentions are raeritless.

APPENDIX "A"

FACTUAL HISTORY

Part of the following facts are contained in the Affidavit of Probable Cause to which the Defendant stipulated when he entered his Open Guilty Plea on September 23, 2008, On November 3, 2007, Officer Charles Peterson of the Upper Darby Township Police Department observed the Defendant and the female victim engaging in sexual intercourse inside a vehicle on a parking garage located on Heather Road and Chestnut Street, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. After learning that the victim was fifteen (15) years of age, Officer Paterson took the Defendant into custody and transported him to the Upper Darby Township Police Department. The victim was also transported to the Upper Darby Township Police Department and the victim's parents were notified.

During the interview with Officer Paterson, the victim stated that after meeting with the Defendant and driving to the movie theater parking lot, the Defendant performed cunnilingus on her and they subsequently engaged in vaginal intercourse. The Defendant, who was interviewed after the victim, signed a form acknowledging that he understood his constitutional rights, and provided a signed, written statement in which he admitted to having met the victim and to having engaged in sexual intercourse with her in his vehicle.

On May 26, 2010, while the Defendant was still on probation and parole, three agents from the Delaware County Office of Adult Probation and Parole conducted a routine compliance check of the Defendant's residence in Philadelphia County. (N.T. 4/26/13 at p. 80). Since the Defendant was away, the three agents were escorted to the Defendant's bedroom by the Defendant's father. (N.T. 4/26/13 at p. 80). Upon inspection of the Defendant's bedroom, one of the agents found two (2) labeled DVDs containing pornographic material and two (2) computers containing pornographic images. (N.T. 4/26/13 at pp. 85-6).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Com. v. Sims-El, A., (Pa. Ct. App. 2018).

Com. v. Sims-El, A. (Com. v. Sims-El, A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gagnon v. Scarpelli
411 U.S. 778 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Commonwealth v. Clark
847 A.2d 122 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Commonwealth v. Woods
965 A.2d 1225 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Commonwealth v. Davis
336 A.2d 616 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)