Case Title: Fajohn v. Com., Dept. of Corrections

Citation: 547 Pa. 649, 692 A.2d 1067

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
547 Pa. 649 (1997) 692 A.2d 1067 Dominic FAJOHN, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted December 9, 1996. Decided April 22, 1997. *650 Dominic Fajohn, Pro Se. Clifford D. Swift, Lancaster, for Dept. of Corrections. Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ. FLAHERTY, Chief Justice. On September 30, 1994 Dominic Fajohn was sentenced by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas to fourteen and a half months to twenty-nine months for crimes committed at Nos. 192-94 and 194-94. While incarcerated on this sentence, on April 10, 1995, Fajohn was sentenced at No. 1351-94, 1262-94, 1373-94, 1379-94 and 136-95 pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The sentence was eighteen months to three years. Fajohn asserts that at his request, the court granted him 190 days credit for the period October 3, 1994 until April 10, 1995 on one of the three sentences, the sentence imposed at 1351-94. The Department of Corrections declined to apply credit for the 190 days on the grounds that it was prevented from doing so by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1406(c), which provides: *651 Thus, the Department of Corrections took the position that it is precluded from applying credit for the period October 3, 1994 until April 10, 1995, for Fajohn was imprisoned for other offenses when the April 10 sentence was imposed. Fajohn brought an action in the Commonwealth Court in mandamus to compel the department of corrections to apply the 190 day credit. Commonwealth Court sustained the Commonwealth's preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, and Fajohn filed this direct appeal. In Doxsey v. Commonwealth, 674 A.2d 1173, (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996), the petitioner also brought an action in mandamus seeking to have his pre-sentence confinement credited toward his sentence. Commonwealth Court sustained the Commonwealth's demurrer, relying on Pa.R.Crim.P. 1406(c): 674 A.2d at 1175. In this case as in Doxsey, mandamus is not available to compel the relief petitioner seeks. Rather, the proper avenue for petitioner's request is an application for re-sentencing in which Fajohn alleges that he has not received the benefit of his plea bargain, coupled with a request that the sentencing court reduce his sentence to the extent of 190 days so that he may receive the benefit of the plea bargain.[1] Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed. [1] Because Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 allows the trial court to correct its orders before an appeal is taken or upon remand by an appellate court, and because 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 limits that power to 30 days after the entry of the order, Fajohn's access to the trial court appears to be foreclosed. His appropriate course of action at this point would be to file a motion for modification of sentence nunc pro tunc in the court of common pleas, asserting that the sentence as recorded did not reflect the bargain or the intent of the court, a fact which did not become apparent until beyond the thirty day appeal period.