J-S76016-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JEROYD P. CONYERS, 

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 388 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 12, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0000683-2013, 

CP-10-CR-0000684-2013, CP-10-CR-0000685-2013, 

CP-10-CR-0000686-2013, CP-10-CR-0001004-2013.

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

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MARCH 15, 2019

Jeroyd P. Conyers appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after he entered guilty pleas to drug offenses and a firearm violation 

on five separate criminal dockets. We affirm.

This case has a long, complicated history, which has resulted in multiple 

appeals to this Court. We have summarized the relevant details as follows:

In 2013, Conyers entered open guilty pleas on five dockets for various 

drug and firearm violations. The trial court originally imposed an aggregate 

sentence of 12 to 24 years of incarceration. Conyers did not file an appeal. 
J-S76016-18

- 2 -

In 2014, Conyers filed a timely PCRA petition.1 The PCRA court 

dismissed this petition and this Court affirmed the dismissal. In a subsequent 

pro se PCRA petition, Conyers challenged the legality of his sentence under 

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). By agreement, the PCRA 

court granted this petition and, in 2016, resentenced Conyers to an aggregate 

111⁄2 to 24 years of incarceration. 

Conyers filed a pro se appeal even though counsel still represented him 

at that time. Eventually, this Court remanded for a Grazier hearing.2 

Following the remand, the trial court held the Grazier hearing, and the trial 

court permitted Conyers to proceed pro se. In addition, the court filed a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, addressing the sentences imposed on all five 

dockets.

In 2017, this Court decided Conyers’ appeal from his 2016 sentence, 

and found merit to his legality of sentence claims. In that decision, we noted:

In its September 1, 2017 Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial 

court conceded that [Conyers] is serving at least one illegal 

sentence, a mandatory minimum sentence, imposed at No. 

CP-10-CR-0000686-2013, of 36 to 72 months’ 

incarceration. Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/1/17, at 2-3. 

The trial court also acknowledged two additional errors 

related to [Conyers’] resentencing. Id. As a result, the trial 

court requested that this Court “remand these cases to the 

Court of Common Pleas for resentencing.” Id. at 3.

____________________________________________

1 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46.

2 Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998).
J-S76016-18

- 3 -

Conyers, unpublished memorandum at 8. We agreed that remand was 

appropriate “to provide the trial court with the opportunity to rectify several 

errors at a resentencing hearing on all five dockets, consistent with the 

dictates of Alleyne and its progeny.” Id. The panel thus vacated Conyers’

judgments of sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id.

The trial court held a new sentencing hearing on February 12, 2018. At 

the beginning of the 2018 proceeding, the trial court acknowledged that, at 

Conyers’ 2016 resentencing, it “frankly got some of the numbers mixed up 

and didn’t appropriately sentence him.” N.T., 2/12/18, at 3. The court stated 

its intention to sentence within the standard range of the guidelines at each 

docket. Id. 

The trial court then asked Conyers’ counsel, whom the court had 

previously appointed as Conyers’ PCRA counsel, if he wished to present any 

additional information. Id. Counsel requested the sentencing memorandum 

that had been prepared when Conyers was originally sentenced in 2013 be 

incorporated into the record. Conyers, via video conference, then testified 

and gave the court an update as to programs and classes he had completed 

or was waiting to attend while incarcerated. See N.T., 2/12/18, at 4. When 

asked by the trial court, the Commonwealth stated that it had nothing to add. 

Id.

The trial court then imposed the following new sentences:

THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s start with 683 of 

2013. It’s a count of possession with intent to deliver. And 

I believe the initial sentence we’ll resentence now. Cost of 
J-S76016-18

- 4 -

prosecution. Fine of $30,000. Undergo imprisonment of not 

less than 21 months nor more than 42 months with the 

Bureau of Corrections. You’ll receive credit for time served 

as allowed by law. And this sentence is consecutive with 

any other sentence. 

And the next sentence is 684 of 2013. That’s [a] charge 

of delivery of a controlled substance. The standard 

guideline range for this sentence is 12 to 18 months 

minimum. So, the sentence of the Court in this case is 

cost[s] of prosecution. $250 fine. Undergo imprisonment 

not less than 12 months nor more than 24 months with the 

Bureau of Corrections. Credit for time served as allowed by 

law. And this sentence will be concurrent with any other 

sentence.

And the next one is 685 of 2013. Delivery of a controlled 

substance. Standard guideline range for this case is a 

minimum of 12 to 18 months. The sentence the Court will 

issue is cost[s] of prosecution. $250 fine. Undergo 

imprisonment of not less than 12 months nor more than 24 

months with the Bureau of Corrections. Credit for time 

served as allowed by law. This sentence is concurrent with 

any other sentence.

The next sentence is 686 of 2013. Delivery of a 

controlled substance. The guidelines for this sentence is 18 

to 36 months. And the sentence of the Court will be costs 

of prosecution. $10,000 fine. Undergo imprisonment not 

less than 18 nor more than 36 months with the Bureau of 

Corrections. Credit for time served as allowed by law. And 

this will be consecutive with any other sentence. 

And then the final case is 1004 of 2013. That’s a former 

convict not to own a firearm. The guidelines are a minimum 

sentence of 42-54 months. The sentence at count one, 

cost[s] of prosecution. $100 fine. [42] to 84 months at the 

Bureau of Corrections. Count two is possession with intent 

to deliver. The guidelines for this case is a minimum of 42 

months to 54 months. The sentence of the Court will be 

cost[s] of prosecution. A fine of $100. Undergo 

imprisonment not less than 54 months nor more than 100 

months with the Bureau of Corrections. And that will be 

consecutive to any other sentence.
J-S76016-18

- 5 -

So the aggregate sentence today that [Conyers] will be 

getting will be a minimum of 135 months [( 111⁄4 years)] to 

[a] maximum of 270 months [(22 1⁄2 years)]. And then 

parole jurisdiction is with the Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Probation and Parole. And following sentence you would 

have 30 days to file an appeal to the Superior Court. 

N.T., 2/12/18, at 5-6 (paragraph breaks added). Upon the court’s inquiry, 

the parties had nothing to add, and the resentencing proceeding concluded. 

Id. at 6.

This timely pro se appeal followed.3 Both Conyers and the trial court 

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Conyers raises the following three issues 

in his brief:

1. Is Conyers entitled to be resentenced again insofar as the 

sentences imposed on February 12, 2018 failed to 

comport with the Superior Court’s directives of October 

17, 2017 with respect to sentencing Conyers in 

consonance with Alleyne and its progeny; and 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B); whereas the extra five years is in 

contravention by elevation of the floor by 5 years and the 

ceiling by two years?

2. Is Conyers entitled to be resentenced again insofar as he 

was not physically present (in personam) at sentencing, 

diverting paperwork to prior counsel; Conyers’ due 

process rights were curtailed by not being able to be 

present at all stages of trial, and to act pro se as court 

ordered by the trial court?

____________________________________________

3 On or about March 14, 2018, Conyers filed his single notice of appeal that 

included all five-docket numbers. Thus, our Supreme Court’s decision in 

Commonwealth v. Walker, which was decided on June 1, 2018, and 

prospectively requires separate notices of appeal for each docket, is 

inapplicable, and does not bar his appeal.
J-S76016-18

- 6 -

3. Is Conyers entitled to be resentenced again insofar as the 

trial court’s sentencing orders are abstruse and do not 

reflect the verbal sentence via video conference by the 

trial court; whereas the Court’s statement of time to be 

served by Conyers?

See Conyers’ Brief at 7.4 Conyers’ supporting arguments are not the model 

of clarity. Nevertheless, to the extent possible, we will discuss each of 

Conyers’ sentencing claims individually.

In his first issue, Conyers challenges the legality of his 2018 sentence. 

“When we address the legality of a sentence, our standard of review is plenary 

and is limited to determining whether the trial court erred as a matter of law.” 

Commonwealth v. Bowers, 25 A.3d 349, 352 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation 

omitted). “A challenge to the legality of a sentence may be raised as a matter 

of right, is not subject to waiver, and may be entertained as long as the 

reviewing court has jurisdiction.” Id. “If no statutory authorization exists for 

a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An 

illegal sentence must be vacated.” Id. 

Here, the trial court rejected Conyers’ legality challenge:

At the hearing, on February 12, 2018, the trial court 

addressed each one of [Conyers’] five (5) cases, rectified 

several sentencing errors and sentenced in accordance with 

the October 17, 2017 Superior Court directive. Therefore, 

____________________________________________

4 The Commonwealth did not file a brief. In addition, in its original Rule 

1925(a) opinion, the trial court opined that it could not address Conyers’ 

claims because he failed to request preparation of the 2018 resentencing 

transcript. Our review of the docket revealed that Conyers did so, and the 

2018 transcript now appears in the certified record. In addition, the trial court 

has prepared a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion, which briefly addresses 

each issue enumerated above.
J-S76016-18

- 7 -

there being no merit to [Conyers’] claim that his sentence 

is illegal, this issue should be dismissed.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/14/18, at 1. Our review of the sentencing transcript 

supports the trial court’s conclusion.

In his argument in support of his first issue, Conyers does not specify 

sufficiently how his 2018 aggregate sentence was increased by five years on 

the minimum (“the floor”) and by two years on the maximum (“the ceiling”). 

These increases are not evident from our review of the record. We believe he 

is simply mistaken about these numbers; alternatively, we find he has failed 

to adequately develop his argument.

As noted above, at the resentencing hearing, the trial court stated its 

intention to impose a standard range sentence at each count, without any 

mention of a mandatory minimum that was invalidated by the appellate cases 

applying the Alleyne decision to Pennsylvania’s sentencing statutes. Further,

to the extent Conyers believes the the trial court’s changing certain sentences 

from concurrent to consecutive renders his sentence illegal under Alleyne and 

its Pennsylvania progeny, he is mistaken. See Conyer’s Brief at 12 n.2.; 14 

n.6. Indeed, Conyers’ new aggregate minimum sentence is 3⁄4 of a year lower 

than the aggregate minimum sentence the trial court originally imposed in 

2013.5 Moreover, Conyers’ 2018 standard-range aggregate sentence clearly 

____________________________________________

5 To the extent that Conyers references Pa.R.Crim.P. 590 and infers that his 

new aggregate sentence violates his plea agreement, this Court, in Conyers, 
J-S76016-18

- 8 -

falls within the potential statutory maximum Conyers faced for his crimes, that 

is, an aggregate 160 years. See Guilty Plea Colloquy, 10/11/13, at 1. 

Conyers first claim of error fails.

In his second issue, Conyers asserts that his due process rights were 

violated when he physically was not present at the 2018 resentencing hearing, 

and only testified by video conference. The trial court found no merit to this 

claim:

At the February 12, 2018 hearing, [Conyers] appeared via 

video. The scheduling order dated January 30, 2018 and 

docketed on February 7, 2018 states that “[c]ourt 

administration shall determine if [Conyers] wishes to be 

resentenced via video.” The transcript of the February 12, 

2018 hearing fails to indicate anywhere that [Conyers] 

and/or his counsel objected to appearing at [the] hearing 

via video. Therefore, as this issue, was not raised below, it 

was not preserved for appeal and must fail.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/14/18, at 1. We agree that this issue is not properly 

before us. See generally, Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Further, Conyers cites no

____________________________________________

supra, has already determined that Conyers entered open pleas at the five 

dockets with no promises regarding sentencing. See Conyers, infra.

In addition, although Conyers argues an “appearance of reprisal” he 

does not properly develop this claim. See Conyers’ Brief at 10; 18 n.10. Thus, 

we will not consider it further. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 

771 (Pa. Super 2007) (stating, “[t]his court will not act as counsel and will not 

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant”). The same holds true for 

Conyers’ claim regarding the use of his prior convictions. See Conyers’ Brief 

at 13 n.4.
J-S76016-18

- 9 -

authority for the proposition that appearance by video conference—when he 

fails to object—nevertheless violates his due process rights.6 See generally 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 119. Thus, Conyers’ second issue entitles him to no relief. 

In his final issue, Conyers states that the above sentencing order is 

“abstruse,” that is, difficult to understand, insofar as his award of credit for 

time served. See Conyers’ Brief at 18-20. In support, he references certain 

exhibits he attached to his brief from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections. As these documents do not appear in the certified record, we 

cannot consider them. See generally, Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 

A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2016). Moreover, our review of the record confirms 

the trial court’s statement that “[t]he sentencing orders generated at [the] 

hearing accurately and clearly reflect what the trial court stated at the 

hearing.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/14/18, at 1.7 

More specifically, when imposing a new sentence at each docket, the 

trial court stated that Conyers was “entitled to credit for time served as 

allowed by law.” To the extent Conyers disagrees with the Department of 

Corrections’ calculation of credit for time served, the trial court has no 

authority to grant relief. Rather, the only procedural avenue by which a 

____________________________________________

6 Given his failure to object to appearing by video conference, we find no merit 

to his claim regarding the presence of counsel. 

7

In a final footnote, Conyers’ raises a merger issue, claiming that all of the 

underlying dockets arose from the “same event.” Conyers’ Brief at 20 n.12. 

We will not consider this undeveloped argument. Hardy, supra. 
J-S76016-18

- 10 -

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).

Having found no merit to any sentencing issue raised by Conyers, we 

affirm his judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/2019