J

- S06014

- 23

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ANTHONY DEROSE

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 992 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004041

- 2021,

CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004043

- 2021, CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004756

- 2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ANTHONY DEROSE

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 512 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004041

- 2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ANTHONY DEROSE

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 513 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004043

- 2021J

- S06014

- 23

- 2

-

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES ANTHONY DEROSE

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 514 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0004756

- 2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: JUNE 26, 2023

Appellant, James Derose, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County after Appellant

entered guilty pleas to counts of retail theft, theft by unlawful taking, and theft

from an automobile. On May 11, 2022, the trial court imposed consecutive

sentences of incarceration in a state correctional institution. Appellant filed

post

- sentence motions, which the trial court denied on Jun e 28, 2022. This

timely appeal followed. 1

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from orders entered on three separate dockets. Following remand in light of Commonwealth v. Walker

, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), Appellant filed separate no tices of appeal docketed in this Court at No. 512 MDA 2023, No. 513 MDA 2023, and No. 514 MDA 2023, respectively, and the trial court certified the supplemental record to this Court. By order entered April 11, 2023, we consolidated the appeals sua (Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S06014

- 23

- 3

-

Although Appellant asks us to consider three sentencing issues in his

appeal, we find no need to address all issues, as we find his first issue

dispositive. Therefore, we confine our discussion to the following :

1. Did the trial court err[] in failing to make a finding as to RRRI eligibility as required by case law?

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 2

As our Supreme Court explained in Commonwealth v. Hansley , 47

A.3d 1180 (Pa. 2012):

In 2008, the Governor signed into law the [Recidivism Risk Reduction Inventive (“RRRI”)] Act, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501

- 4512. The RRRI Act permits offenders who exhibit good behavior and who complete rehabilitative programs in prison to be eligible for

reduced sentences. . . . The RRRI Act does not apply to all defendants, but only to certain “eligible offenders,” a term that does not include those with a history of violent crime, convicted of certain sex offenses, or subject to a deadly weapon

enhancement. See [61 Pa.C.S.] § 4503.

The RRI Act prescribes separate duties for the sentencing judge and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment in a state correctional facility, the court must also determine if the defendant is eligible for an RRRI Act minimum sentence,

see 61 Pa.C.S. § 4505(a).

Id. at 1186

- 87 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

sponte for further proceedings at the original docket, No. 992 MDA 2022. See Order, 4/11/23.

2 Appellant’s remaining issues challenged the legality of his sentence.J

- S06014

- 23

- 4

-

In Commonwealth v. Finnecy , 249 A.3d 904 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme

Court addressed RRRI Act sentences. The Court looked to the Sentencing

Code an d considered, in particular,

the language of the Sentencing Code concerning the imposition of

RRRI Act sentences:

The court shall determine if the defendant is eligible for a

recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence under

61 Pa.C.S. Ch. 45 (relating to recidivism risk reduction incentive). If the defendant is eligible, the court shall impose a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum

sentence in addition to a minimum sentence and maximum sentence[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b.1) . This statute makes clear that sentencing courts are required to make an assessment as to an offender’s eligibility for a sentence under the RRRI Act and lack discretion to forego imposing one where an offender is eligi ble. A sentencing court’s incorrect determination regarding an offender’s eligibility, which results in the failure to impose a reduced sentence, necessarily involves a challenge to the sentencing court’s authority to impose a particular sentence.

Id. at 912. In Commonwealth v. Robinson , 7 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2010),

this Court recognized the mandate of Section 9756, which “requir[es]

sentencing courts to determine if a defendant is eligible for an RRRI minimum

sentence. Accordingly, where the trial cou rt fails to make a statutorily

required determination regarding a defendant’s eligibility for an RRRI

minimum sentence as required, the sentence is illegal.” Id. at 871 (footnote

omitted).

Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript confirms that the trial

court did not determine whether Appellant was RRRI eligible before imposingJ

- S06014

- 23

- 5

-

a sentence of imprisonment in a state correctional institution. See Notes of

Testimony, Sentencing, 5/11/22. Therefore, in accordance with Robinson

,

the sentence is illega l.

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court addressed its failure to

determine RRRI eligibility, stating:

Appellant asserts that this court imposed an illegal sentence on all dockets by failing to state whether he was RRRI eligible or not.

This cour t agrees and requests remand for a declaration of RRRI eligibility in the event that the Superior Court deems it necessary.

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/12/22, at 12 (some capitalization

omitted).

As the above

- quoted case law excerpts confirm, RRRI eligibility must be

determined before a trial court may impose a sentence of incarceration in a

state correctional institu tion. Because the trial court failed to do so, resulting

in an illegal sentence, it is necessary for us to vacate Appellant’s judgment of

sentence and remand to the trial court for a determination of Appellant’s

eligibility for RRRI.

Judgment of sentenc e vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction

relinquished.J

- S06014

- 23

- 6

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/26/2023