J-S17040-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WAYNE CUMMINGS

Appellant No. 3739 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered October 27, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003874-2010 & 

CP-51-CR-0003875-2010.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J. and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 16, 2018

Wayne Cummings appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

following resentencing. We affirm.

The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows: On June 14, 

2011, the trial court convicted Cummings for multiple counts of sex offenses 

he perpetrated on two girls, ages 11 and 12. On December 2, 2011, the 

trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 7 to 14 years of 

imprisonment. Cummings filed a timely appeal to this Court, in which he 

challenged the trial court’s determination that he was a sexually violent 

predator (“SVP”). We rejected this claim, and affirmed his judgment of 

sentence in an unpublished memorandum filed on March 27, 2013. 

Commonwealth v. Cummings, No. 276 EDA 2012. 
J-S17040-18

- 2 -

Thereafter, Cummings filed a timely PCRA petition, in which he 

asserted that his aggregate 7 to 14 year judgment of sentence included the 

imposition of mandatory minimum sentence that had been declared 

unconstitutional in Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016). 

The Commonwealth agreed that Cummings was entitled to resentencing. 

Thus, on October 27, 2016, the trial court resentenced Cummings to an 

aggregate 6 to 12 year judgment of sentence. This appeal follows the denial 

of Cumming’s motion to modify sentence. Both Cummings and the trial 

court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Cummings raises the following issues on appeal:

Was [Cummings] entitled to a new [SVP] evaluation by the 

Pennsylvania Sex Offenders [Assessment] Board prior to 

his resentencing.

[Whether] a sentence requiring lifetime registration for 

multiple convictions in one proceeding contravenes the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court holding in A.S. v. State 

Police, 143 A.3d 896 (Pa. 2016), that such registration 

requires fist “an act, a conviction and a subsequent act.” 

Has the [Pennsylvania] Department of Corrections applied 

the restructured sentence correctly?

Cummings’ Brief at 5 (excess capitalization omitted). 

In his supporting argument, Cummings concedes that his first two 

issues were correctly disposed of by the trial court. He nevertheless claims 

that the “Department of Corrections has calculated the expiration of [his] 

maximum [sentence pursuant to the new 6-12 year aggregate] incorrectly 
J-S17040-18

- 3 -

and we wish that this opinion could rectify the situation.” Cummings’ Brief 

at 9. 

Initially, we note that because Cummings did not raise this third claim 

in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement it is waived. See generally, See 

Commonwealth v. Pukowsky, 147 A.3d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2016). 

Moreover, absent waiver, the trial court has no authority to grant such relief. 

Rather, the only procedural avenue by which a criminal defendant can 

pursue a claim alleging that the Department of Corrections miscalculated his 

credit for time served is by filing a separate lawsuit in Commonwealth Court. 

See generally, Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. 

2015).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/16/18