J-S22037-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHASE SHOMO JOHNSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 802 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 23, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at CP-02-CR-0013051-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: JULY 14, 2023

Chase Shomo Johnson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of persons not to 

possess firearms, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1), and firearms not to be carried 

without a license, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). We agree with the parties that 

Appellant’s sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to address 

Appellant’s eligibility under the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) 

Act.

1

 Thus, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

Appellant’s convictions arise from an incident that occurred on 

November 5, 2019, when Appellant fled in a vehicle from police and parole 

agents. See N.T. (Plea Hearing), 5/23/22, at 10-12. When police stopped

the vehicle, they discovered Appellant with a loaded gun in plain view. Id. at 

____________________________________________

1 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501-4512.
J-S22037-23

- 2 -

11. Appellant was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior 

convictions. Id. at 12.

On May 23, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea. The trial court 

accepted Appellant’s plea and immediately sentenced him to an aggregate 6 

– 12 years in prison, followed by two years of probation. Appellant timely 

filed a post-sentence motion to modify sentence on June 2, 2022. The trial 

court denied Appellant’s motion a week later. Appellant timely appealed.2 

Appellant presents two questions for review:

I. Whether the sum and substance of [Appellant’s] sentence is

illegal where the Trial Court failed to determine, on the record

at the time of sentencing, whether [Appellant] was eligible for

a RRRI sentence, in violation of 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a)?

II. Whether the Trial Court abused its sentencing discretion by

failing to apply all relevant sentencing criteria, including the

protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and

[Appellant’s] character and rehabilitative needs, as required 

by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (footnote omitted).

Appellant claims, for the first time on appeal,3that the trial court 

imposed an illegal sentence because it never determined Appellant’s RRRI 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925.

3 Appellant correctly states that although this is the first time that he raises

this claim, it cannot be waived. Appellant’s Brief at 5 n.1 (citing 

Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d 95, 99 (Pa. 2007) (if a claim “clearly 

implicates the legality of sentence, whether it was properly preserved below 

is of no moment, as a challenge to the legality of sentence cannot be 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S22037-23

- 3 -

eligibility. See id. at 16-19; see also id. at 18 n.3 (correctly noting 

Appellant’s “RRRI status was never addressed by the parties at the ... guilty 

plea/sentencing hearing, nor was it addressed in the subsequently filed written

sentencing order.”). Appellant emphasizes that the RRRI Act mandates: “At 

the time of sentencing, the court shall make a determination whether the 

defendant is an eligible offender.” Id. at 18 (quoting 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a) 

(Appellant’s emphasis)). Appellant directs our attention to Commonwealth 

v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 871 (Pa. Super. 2010), holding that “where the trial 

court fails to make a statutorily required determination regarding a

defendant’s eligibility for an RRRI minimum sentence as required, the 

sentence is illegal.” Appellant’s Brief at 18-19. Appellant asks that we vacate 

his illegal sentence and remand for resentencing. Id. at 19.

The Commonwealth agrees that “because there was no inquiry made 

into RRRI eligibility, there is a basis for remand of this case for resentencing.” 

Commonwealth Brief at 9; see also id. at 7 (stating “neither the trial court, 

nor the prosecutor, nor defense counsel made inquiry regarding RRRI.”).

“We apply a de novo standard of review and plenary scope of review to 

questions of legality of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 276 A.3d 279, 

281 (Pa. Super. 2022). The Sentencing Code provides:

The court shall determine if the defendant is eligible for a 

recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence under 61

____________________________________________

waived.”)); see also Commonwealth Brief at 7 (agreeing legality of sentence 

claims cannot be waived).
J-S22037-23

- 4 -

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 except, if the defendant was 

previously sentenced to two or more recidivism risk reduction 

incentive minimum sentences, the court shall have the discretion 

to impose a sentence with no recidivism risk reduction incentive 

minimum.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1) (emphasis added). “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 eligible.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 

249 A.3d 903, 912 (Pa. 2021) (emphasis added).

In sum, Appellant’s sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to 

determine Appellant’s RRRI eligibility. See id.; Robinson, supra. Although 

the court may ultimately determine Appellant is not an “eligible offender,” it 

is required to make that determination when it imposes a sentence. See 61 

Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1). Accordingly, we vacate

Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for the trial court to determine

Appellant’s RRRI eligibility.4

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing in 

accordance with this Memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

4 Our disposition renders Appellant’s second issue moot.
J-S22037-23

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/14/2023