J-S77030-16

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JEFFREY P. LIBENGOOD

Appellant No. 593 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 25, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000918-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2016

Appellant, Jeffrey P. Libengood, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on January 25, 2016, as made final by the denial of his 

post-sentence motion on March 14, 2016. We affirm.

The factual background and procedural history of this case are as 

follows. During 2014, Appellant repeatedly sexually abused S.D. On June 

18, 2015, the Commonwealth charged Appellant via criminal information 

with four counts of aggregated indecent assault of a child,1two counts of 

rape of a child,2two counts of statutory sexual assault,3involuntary deviate 

 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(7). 

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(c).

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1(b).
J-S77030-16

- 2 -

sexual intercourse with a child,4corruption of minors,5endangering the 

welfare of a child,6and indecent assault of a child.7

On or about June 22, 2015, Appellant waived his right to arraignment. 

On or about July 2, 2015, Appellant requested a bill of particulars from the 

Commonwealth. When the Commonwealth failed to respond to that request, 

Appellant filed a motion on July 16, 2015 seeking a bill of particulars 

outlining the exact dates of the alleged assaults. The trial court granted the 

motion and ordered the Commonwealth to provide a bill of particulars. On 

July 23, 2015, the Commonwealth filed its bill of particulars which stated, in 

relevant part, “[t]he alleged incidents in the above captioned [case] 

occurred at various times between January 1, 2014 and December 20, 2014 

as stated in the criminal complaint and criminal information.” Bill of 

Particulars, 7/23/15, at 1.

 On October 28, 2015, Appellant filed a motion in limine seeking to 

bar S.D.’s testimony because the Commonwealth’s bill of particulars was 

insufficient. The trial court orally denied the motion that same day. On 

October 29, 2015, Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggregated 

indecent assault of a child, rape of a child, two counts of statutory sexual 

 

4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b).

5 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1)(ii).

6 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1). 

7 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7).
J-S77030-16

- 3 -

assault of a child, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, 

and indecent assault of a child. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 10 to 

20 years’ imprisonment for the rape of a child conviction. The prison 

sentences imposed for the remaining convictions were ordered to run 

concurrently with the rape of a child sentence. On February 4, 2016, 

Appellant filed a post-sentence motion. On March 16, 2016, the trial court 

denied the post-sentence motion. This timely appeal followed.8 

Appellant presents two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing [Appellant’s m]otion 

in [l]imine after the Commonwealth failed to provide full and 

complete responses to his request and court order for more 

specific dates and times for the alleged incidents, and simply 

charged a one[-]year time frame, precluding his ability to 

adequately defend himself?

2. Whether the trial court erred in applying the mandatory 

minimum sentence provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9718(a)(1) in 

light of Commonwealth v. Wolfe[, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 

2014), aff’d, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016)]?

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4. 

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying 

his motion in limine to bar S.D.’s testimony. In that motion, Appellant 

 

8 On April 12, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On May 5, 2016, Appellant filed his concise statement. 

On June 13, 2016, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

The Commonwealth contends that Appellant waived his first issue because of 

lack of specificity in his concise statement. We conclude, however, that 

Appellant’s concise statement was not so vague as to warrant waiver of his 

first issue. 
J-S77030-16

- 4 -

argued that the Commonwealth’s failure to provide the exact dates upon 

which the assaults occurred in its bill of particulars warranted barring S.D.’s 

testimony. Although Appellant’s motion was titled a motion in limine, it was 

in fact a motion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 572(C). 

We review a trial court’s Rule 572 decision for an abuse of discretion. See

Commonwealth v. Mercado, 649 A.2d 946, 959 (Pa. Super. 1994) 

(citation omitted).

Rule 572 provides that: 

(A) A request for a bill of particulars shall be served in writing by 

the defendant upon the attorney for the Commonwealth within

[seven] days following arraignment. The request shall promptly 

be filed and served as provided in Rule 576.

(B) The request shall set forth the specific particulars sought by 

the defendant, and the reasons why the particulars are 

requested.

(C) Upon failure or refusal of the attorney for the Commonwealth 

to furnish a bill of particulars after service of a request, the 

defendant may make written motion for relief to the court within 

[seven] days after such failure or refusal. If further particulars 

are desired after an original bill of particulars has been 

furnished, a motion therefor may be made to the court within 

[five] days after the original bill is furnished.

(D) When a motion for relief is made, the court may make such 

order as it deems necessary in the interests of justice.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 572. As noted above, in this case the Commonwealth provided 

its bill of particulars on July 23, 2015. Appellant did not file his motion in 

limine until October 28, 2015 – more than 90 days after the bill of 

particulars was furnished. 
J-S77030-16

- 5 -

The trial court denied Appellant’s motion on two grounds. First, the 

trial court found that Appellant failed to provide a compelling reason why he 

failed to seek relief under Rule 572(C) within five days. Second, the trial 

court found that even if it were to consider the merits of Appellant’s motion, 

he was not entitled to relief. As we ascertain no abuse of discretion by the 

trial court in denying the motion because of Appellant’s failure to comply 

with the five-day time limit proscribed by Rule 572(C), we decline to address 

the trial court’s alternative holding on the merits.

We find instructive this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. 

Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 1994). In Montalvo, like in the case 

at bar, the defendant filed a motion in limine because of his dissatisfaction 

with the bill of particulars provided by the Commonwealth. This Court stated 

that “when defense counsel desires further particulars after an original bill of 

particulars has been furnished, the proper action is to file a motion 

requesting the additional particulars within five days after the original 

bill is furnished.” Id. at 1186 (citation omitted; emphasis added).

Although not explicitly stated in Montalvo, the implication of this 

Court’s statement is that the failure of a defendant to file a motion within 

five days of the original bill of particulars being filed by the Commonwealth 

results in the defendant waiving any defect in the bill of particulars provided 

by the Commonwealth. This reading of Montalvo is confirmed by dicta 

contained within this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Albanesi, 338 
J-S77030-16

- 6 -

A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 1975). In Albanesi, this Court stated that if the 

defendant failed to file a motion within the time periods specified by Rule 

572’s predecessor, the defendant may be precluded from later seeking relief 

because of the Commonwealth’s failure to provide an appropriate bill of 

particulars. Id. at 611. 

This treatment of an untimely Rule 572(C) motion also comports with 

the handling of untimely omnibus pretrial motions. Under Rule 579, the 

defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion generally must be filed within 30 days 

of arraignment. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 579(A). As this Court has explained, 

failure to file an omnibus pretrial motion within that time period results in 

waiver of any issues raised in an untimely omnibus pretrial motion. See 

Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1248 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

We ascertain no reason why filing a late Rule 572(C) motion should be 

treated differently than filing a late omnibus pretrial motion.

The time requirements included within the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Criminal Procedure for filing certain motions are critical to the efficient 

administration of justice. Specifically, the time requirements permit trial 

courts sufficient time to consider various legal issues and rule thereon while 

ensuring the defendant has a speedy trial. Furthermore, failure to file a 

timely motion is likely to result in a waste of judicial resources. This case 

provides an example of that dynamic. If the trial court granted Appellant’s 

motion and barred S.D.’s testimony, there is little question that the 
J-S77030-16

- 7 -

Commonwealth would have immediately appealed that order to this Court. 

That appeal necessarily would have been filed literally minutes before the 

jury panel was to be sworn and the case begun. This would have resulted in 

the jurors, who were waiting in the jury room during argument on 

Appellant’s motion, being sent home. Although in some instances such 

delayed proceedings are unavoidable, as the trial court aptly noted in its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion in this case, the only explanation Appellant’s counsel 

provided for the untimely filing of the Rule 572(C) motion was trial tactics. 

Trial tactics cannot excuse a blatant violation of the applicable court rules. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Appellant’s motion in limine on timeliness grounds.

In his second issue, Appellant argues that his sentence is illegal. 

“Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law. Our 

standard of review over such questions is de novo and our scope of review is 

plenary.” Commonwealth v. Aikens, 139 A.3d 244, 245 (Pa. Super. 

2016) (ellipsis and citation omitted). 

Appellant argues that he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum 

sentence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718, which provides that a defendant 

convicted of the rape of a child be sentenced to not less than 10 years’ 

imprisonment. In Wolfe, our Supreme Court held “that Section 9718 is 

irremediably unconstitutional on its face, non-severable, and void.” Wolfe, 

140 A.3d at 663. Thus, any sentence imposed thereunder is illegal. See id. 
J-S77030-16

- 8 -

The trial court in the case sub judice, however, did not impose a 

sentence pursuant to section 9718. Although the trial court referenced 

section 9718, it explicitly stated that it was not applying the statute. 

Specifically, the trial court stated that, despite its disagreement with this 

Court’s decision in Wolfe and the fact that, at the time of sentencing, 

allocatur had been granted in Wolfe, it was bound by this Court’s decision 

that section 9718 is unconstitutional. See N.T., 1/25/16, at 26-27. Thus, it 

proceeded to sentence Appellant without consideration of the mandatory 

minimum sentence. See id. at 27. Upon consideration of the 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9721(b) factors, the trial court determined that the 10 to 20 year sentence 

previously mandated by section 9718 was appropriate in this case and thus 

imposed that sentence. See id. As Appellant was not sentenced pursuant 

to section 9718, his sentence is legal and he is not entitled to relief on this 

claim of error. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/29/2016