J-S04021-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GERRIEL L. PICKEL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 955 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 29, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-67-CR-0005246-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2018

Appellant, Gerriel L. Pickel, appeals from the March 29, 2017 

Judgment of Sentence entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas 

following a non-jury trial. The trial court convicted Appellant of Driving 

Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance (“DUI”) and Driving 

While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked (“DWS”),

1 and sentenced

Appellant to a term of six months’ probation and a fine of $300 for DUI and 

$500 for DWS. Because the $500 fine imposed for DWS constitutes an 

illegal sentence, we vacate and remand.

The factual history is not relevant to our disposition. Following 

sentencing, on April 9, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S. §3802(a)(1) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a), respectively.
J-S04021-18

- 2 -

Sentence, which the trial court denied. Appellant timely appealed. Both 

Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises a sole issue for our review:

Whether [Appellant]’s $500 fine for [DWS] should be corrected 

where a $200 fine is mandated by statute and the $500 fine is 

unauthorized, the trial court clearly intended to impose a $200 

fine, and the trial court has now requested remand for correction 

of the fine.

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law; our 

standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. 

Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748, 750 (Pa. Super. 2014). It is 

well established that “if no statutory authorization exists for a particular 

sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction.” Id. (quotation 

and citation omitted). 

Instantly, Appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously imposed an 

illegal $500 fine for DWS, instead of the $200 fine that was mandated by 

statute and discussed in court; the trial court and the Commonwealth agree. 

See Appellant’s Brief at 9-11; Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/19/2017, at 7-

8; Commonwealth’s Letter Brief at 1-2. The trial court, Appellant, and the 

Commonwealth all request a remand of this case to correct the error. Id. 

Section 1543 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides, in pertinent part:

. . . [A]ny person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or 

trafficway of this Commonwealth after the commencement of a 

suspension, revocation or cancellation of the operating privilege 

and before the operating privilege has been restored is guilty of 
J-S04021-18

- 3 -

a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to 

pay a fine of $200.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a). Our Supreme Court has held that “[o]nce a trial 

court has determined that the Commonwealth has established the 

requirements of a legislatively mandated sentence, the trial court has no 

discretion to deviate its sentence from that which is defined by statute.” 

Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 744 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. 2000) (citations 

omitted). Moreover, when a trial court imposes a sentence that is outside of 

the legal parameters prescribed by the applicable statute, the sentence is 

illegal and this Court should remand for correction. Id. at 1284. 

Upon convicting Appellant of DWS, the trial court was legislatively 

mandated to impose a fine of $200. Instead, the trial court stated on the 

record that it was going to impose a $200 fine for DWS, but then entered a 

Sentence Order that imposed a $500 fine. See N.T. Verdict, 3/29/17, at 3; 

Sentence Order dated 3/29/17. The trial court explained that “a seemingly 

clerical error” resulted in the fine being incorrectly transcribed, 

acknowledged that the fine was illegal, and requested that this Court 

remand the case for correction. Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/19/17, at 7-8.

Accordingly, we conclude that the $500 fine imposed for DWS 

constitutes an illegal sentence and vacate that fine. We remand for the trial 

court to impose a $200 fine for DWS pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a). 

Judgment of Sentence vacated. Case remanded with instructions. 

Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-S04021-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/8/2018