J-S72026-17

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANTWINE HOLDER,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2429 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 24, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011307-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2017

Antwine Holder (“Holder”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his conviction of attempted murder, aggravated assault, 

kidnapping, persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried 

without a license, and carrying firearms on public streets or public property 

in Philadelphia. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2702(a)(1), 2901(a)(2), 6105, 

6106, 6108. We vacate the judgment of sentence, and remand for 

resentencing.

Following a jury trial, Holder was convicted of the above-mentioned 

crimes. The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence 

investigation report. On February 24, 2016, the trial court sentenced Holder 

to an aggregate term of 44 to 102 years in prison. Relevant to this appeal, 

the trial court imposed a term of 20 to 40 years in prison for Holder’s

kidnapping conviction. On March 7, 2016, Holder filed a Motion for 
J-S72026-17

- 2 -

Reconsideration,1 which the trial court denied. Holder filed a timely Notice of 

Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters 

complained of on appeal.

On appeal, Holder asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal 

sentence of 20 to 40 years for his kidnapping conviction.2 Brief for Appellant 

at 22-23. 

The Commonwealth and the trial court agree that the sentence 

imposed for Holder’s kidnapping conviction is illegal. See Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 14-15; see also Trial Court Opinion, 1/27/17, at 6 (wherein the trial 

court stated that “[t]he sentence on [Holder’s] kidnapping conviction ... was 

imposed in error.”). In its Opinion, the trial court noted that Holder faced a 

mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 9714(a)(1), but recognized that Holder’s sentence “exceed[s] the 

statutory maximum sentence for a first-degree felony.” Trial Court Opinion, 

1/27/17, at 6; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(1) (providing that a person 

may be sentenced, “[i]n the case of a felony of the first degree, for a term 

which shall be fixed by the court at not more than 20 years.”). Accordingly, 

____________________________________________

1 Holder, pro se, had previously filed a Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2016. 

This Court subsequently quashed the appeal as interlocutory, as the trial 

court had not entered an order regarding the Motion for Reconsideration. 

2 Although Holder failed to raise this claim in his Concise Statement, 

“challenges to the legality of the sentence are never waived.” 

Commonwealth v. Berry, 877 A.2d 479, 482 (Pa. Super. 2005).
J-S72026-17

- 3 -

we must vacate Holder’s judgment of sentence and remand the case for 

resentencing. “As the resentencing has the potential to disrupt the trial 

court’s entire sentencing scheme, we vacate all of [Holder’s] sentences and 

remand for resentencing at all counts.” Commonwealth v. McCamey, 154 

A.3d 352, 359 (Pa. Super. 2017).3

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/29/17

____________________________________________

3 We note that Holder also raised a challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence. See Brief for Appellant at 15-22. However, in light of our 

disposition, we need not address Holder’s second claim. See 

Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 125 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en 

banc). Moreover, we note that Holder’s second claim is waived, as his 

Motion for Reconsideration did not include his argument that the trial court 

abused its discretion by imposing “consecutive sentences for these offenses 

committed concurrently.” Brief for Appellant at 16; see also Motion for 

Reconsideration, 3/7/16; Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 

(Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “[o]bjections to the discretionary aspects of 

a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing 

hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed.”).