Com. v. Walter, J.
This text of Com. v. Walter, J. (Com. v. Walter, J.) 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-A29028-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAYME WAYNE WALTER : : Appellant : No. 94 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0002440-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAYME WAYNE WALTER : : Appellant : No. 95 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000863-2022
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAYME WAYNE WALTER : : Appellant : No. 96 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000864-2022 J-A29028-23
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: February 28, 2024
Jayme Wayne Walter appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to multiple drug related offenses. He claims that the trial
court abused its discretion when it denied his post-sentence motion without a
hearing. Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court detailed the facts of this case in its opinion, which we
need not repeat. Briefly, this matter arises out of two separate controlled
buys between Walter and a confidential informant for methamphetamine. On
another occasion, Walter drove to Allentown to pick up drugs and bring them
back to Blair County. Upon his return, Walter was pulled over and a search
of the vehicle uncovered cell phones, $1,000 cash, six pounds of
methamphetamine and various amounts of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.
Walter was arrested and charged at three separate dockets with various
offenses.
On September 14, 2022, the day his trial was to start, Walter entered
an open guilty plea in all three cases to six counts of possession with intent to
deliver controlled substances including methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin,
and cocaine, three counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, four
counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of use/possession
drug paraphernalia, three counts of criminal use of a communication facility,
and one count each of corrupt organizations, conspiracy to commit corrupt
-2- J-A29028-23
organizations, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities, and dealing in
proceeds of unlawful activities (designed to conceal).1
On November 29, 2022, the trial court sentenced Walter to an
aggregate term of 32 ½ to 65 years’ incarceration. Walter filed a post-
sentence motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing.
Walter filed this timely appeal. He and the trial court complied with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal, Walter raises the following single issue:
Did the post-sentence motion’s court abuse [its] discretion by denying [Walter’s] post-sentence motion without a hearing given the lengthy sentence the court imposed?
Walter’s Brief at 5.
Walter claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
his post-sentence motion without a hearing. Walter maintains that this is
particularly so considering the lengthy sentence the court imposed. According
to Walter, the court did not give him a hearing because he previously acted
out in court and the court “did not want to possibly have to hear him complain
about the Commonwealth and his sentence.”2 Walter’s Brief at 9. ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), (a)(32), 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7512, 911(b)(3), 911(b)(4), 5111(a)(1), and 5111(a)(2).
2 We note that Walter makes several other arguments claiming the trial court
abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. However, Walter did not include any issue regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence in his statement of questions involved on appeal. An appellant is required to (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-A29028-23
Initially, based upon our review of the record, we observe that Walter
did not include any issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement regarding the court’s
denial of a hearing on his post-sentence motion. Instead, he claimed that
his sentence was manifestly excessive and raised various issues pertaining
to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Issues not included in the Rule
1925(b) statement are waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth
v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998). Consequently, Walter’s sole appellate
issue is waived.
Nonetheless, even if Walter had not waived his issue, we would conclude
that it is without merit. Notably, Walter cited no authority to support his claim.
____________________________________________
“state concisely the issues to be resolved [by this Court], expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). “This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 424 A.2d 531, 533 (Pa. Super. 1981). In accord with the clear language of Rule 2116(a) that “no question will be considered” unless it is included within the statement of issues, we conclude that any arguments related to the discretionary aspects of Walter’s sentence are waived.
Furthermore, Walter did not include a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of sentence pursuant to Rule 2119(f) in his appellate brief. Generally, “[w]here an appellant fails to comply with Rule 2119(f) and the Commonwealth objects, the issue is waived for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 861 A.2d 304, 308 (Pa. Super. 2004). Here, the Commonwealth objected. Commonwealth's Brief at 7. Therefore, Walter’s arguments regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence are waived on this basis also.
-4- J-A29028-23
Rather, he only made a blanket statement that the trial court abused its
discretion by not conducting a hearing.3 Indeed, Walter could not offer any
legal support for his claim. It is clear that the decision to hold a hearing on a
post-sentence motion is within the trial court’s discretion. Pennsylvania Rule
of Criminal Procedure 720(B)(2)(b) provides: “The judge shall [] determine
whether a hearing or argument on the motion is required, and if so, shall
schedule a date or dates certain for one or both.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(2)(b).
As such, there is no right to a hearing on a post-sentence motion. We would
conclude that Walter’s issue merits no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
DATE: 2/28/2024
3 An appellant must provide a legal argument for each question, which should
include a discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “[I]t is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Walter, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-walter-j-pasuperct-2024.