J-S04036-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

VERNON HALL,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 392 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered January 28, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000752-2012,

CP-35-CR-0001776-2011

BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015

Vernon Hall (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered on 

January 28, 2014, which dismissed his petition filed pursuant to the Post 

Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. We vacate the 

order and remand for further proceedings.

We glean the following from the certified record and the PCRA court’s 

docket. At trial court docket number CP-35-0001976-2011, Appellant pled 

guilty to criminal trespass. At trial court docket number CP-35-0000752-

2012, Appellant pled guilty to possession with the intent to deliver a 

controlled substance. He was sentenced at both docket numbers on 

September 25, 2012. Appellant timely filed a motion for reconsideration of 

sentence, which the trial court denied on October 2, 2012. Appellant did not 

pursue a direct appeal.
J-S04036-15

- 2 -

After numerous filings not relevant to the current issue, on March 20, 

2014, while a PCRA appeal was pending, Appellant pro se filed a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, wherein Appellant asserted he was not credited for time 

he spent in custody from January 26, 2012 to September 25, 2012. In his 

pro se brief to this Court, Appellant asks us to consider one question, 

namely, “Did the trial court err when it dismissed Appellant’s Petition for 

[231] days time credit spent in custody of the county prison, dates being 

January 26, 2012 to September 25, 2012[?]” Our standard of review of the 

denial of a PCRA petition is limited to examining whether the court’s rulings 

are supported by the evidence of record and free of legal error. 

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010).

In support of his issue, Appellant inartfully argues that the sentencing 

court erred by failing to give him credit for time he served in prison from 

January 26, 2012 to September 25, 2012. Because Appellant raised this 

issue for the first time in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, the 

Commonwealth contends that Appellant has waived his issue. We disagree 

with the Commonwealth. 

“A challenge to the trial court’s failure to award credit for time served 

prior to sentencing involves the legality of a sentence.” Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001, 1003 (Pa. Super. 2009). Such a challenge is nonwaivable, even if it is raised for the first time in an appeal from an order that 

disposed of a PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. Seskey, 86 A.3d 237, 
J-S04036-15

- 3 -

241 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“Thus, even though [Seskey’s] claims were not first 

presented to the PCRA court in [his] PCRA petition or in his Rule 1925(b) 

concise statement as challenges to the legality of the sentence, they cannot 

be waived.”).

The PCRA court never addressed Appellant’s claim that he did not 

receive the appropriate amount of credit for time served. Moreover, we are 

unable to discern from the record whether Appellant’s claim has merit. 

Consequently, we vacate the PCRA court’s order and remand the matter to 

that court. On remand, the PCRA court shall review Appellant’s claim 

regarding his credit for time served and thereafter shall enter an appropriate 

order.

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judge Allen joins the memorandum.

Judge Bowes files a concurring statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/10/2015