J-S05015-24

2024 PA Super 91

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DAMON SHAWN WHEELER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 624 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0001294-2019, 

CP-11-CR-0001296-2019, CP-11-CR-0001301-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: May 3, 2024

Damon Shawn Wheeler appeals from an order denying his motion 

seeking relief in the form of direction to the Department of Corrections 

concerning credit for time served in his above-captioned criminal matters.1

We affirm.

At trial court docket number 1301-2019, a jury convicted Wheeler of 

four counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver and one count 

of criminal use of a communication facility.2 On June 22, 2020, the trial court 

____________________________________________

1 Wheeler filed a pro se appeal containing three docket numbers, in violation 

of our Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 

(Pa. 2018). Because the trial court issued a single order addressing the three 

docket numbers in tandem, we accept this pro se appeal for review pursuant 

to Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903 and 7512(a).
J-S05015-24

- 2 -

sentenced him to serve an aggregate term of incarceration of six to twelve 

years, with credit for time served. 

On March 15, 2022, at trial court docket number 1294-2019, Wheeler 

pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture, deliver, or possess 

Fentanyl.3 The trial court sentenced Wheeler to serve a term of five to ten 

years’ incarceration, with credit for time served. The same day, at docket 

number 1296-2019, Wheeler pled guilty to one count of possession with intent 

to deliver or manufacture Fentanyl.4 Again, the trial court sentenced him to 

serve a term of five to ten years of incarceration, with credit for time served. 

Wheeler filed neither post-sentence motions nor direct appeals.

On March 13, 2023, at each of the three docket numbers, Wheeler filed 

a pro se “motion to modify credit order.”5 The trial court held a hearing and 

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903 and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

5

It is undisputed that on September 2, 2021, Wheeler filed a petition for relief 

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, 

addressing his convictions under the three docket numbers. The PCRA court 

dismissed the petition on December 2, 2023, and this Court affirmed that 

decision on April 4, 2024. See Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 23 WDA 2023, 

____ Pa. Super. ___ (Pa. Super. filed 4/4/24) (unpublished memorandum). 

Therefore, the instant motion was filed while the PCRA petition was pending. 

However, as discussed infra, this motion was not cognizable under the PCRA. 

Therefore, it did not run afoul of our Supreme Court’s mandate in 

Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000), which prohibits the 

filing of a subsequent PCRA petition while a prior PCRA petition is pending.
J-S05015-24

- 3 -

on May 18, 2023, entered an order denying Wheeler’s motion.6 This appeal 

followed.

In his pro se brief to this Court, Wheeler speculates that the trial court’s 

order somehow removed the credit for time served provision of his sentences 

at docket numbers 1294-2019 and 1296-2019, which essentially amounts to 

a request for resentencing.7 See Appellant’s Brief, at v. 

____________________________________________

6 The pertinent text of the trial court’s order follows:

1. [Wheeler’s] Motion to Modify Credit Order is DENIED.

2. The [c]ourt finds no error in the Sentencing Orders that would 

impact the Department of Corrections’ calculations of credit for 

time served.

3. In the way of further explanation, the [c]ourt determined that at 

cases 1294-2019, count 2 and 1296-2019, count 1, the effective 

date of sentence is March 15, 2021. It appears no credit is 

available at this sentence as a result of it being credited to the 

case at 1301-2019. Based upon the [c]ourt’s review, it appears 

the Department of Corrections’ calculations are accurate.

4. Any issues or disputes regarding credit for time served 

calculations made by the Department of Corrections must be 

raised before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Order, 5/18/23, at 1-2.

7 We observe Wheeler declares in his brief that “[a]s a pro se litigant, [his]

pleadings are held to standards less than an attorney.” Appellant’s Brief, at 2. 

However, Wheeler is not entitled to any particular advantage because he lacks 

legal training. “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials 

filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the 

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself 

in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of 

expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. (citation omitted).
J-S05015-24

- 4 -

Before we address the merits of his claim, we first consider whether the 

relief sought in Wheeler’s motion is cognizable under the PCRA or properly 

brought before the trial court. This Court has explained that “[a] challenge to 

the trial court’s failure to award credit for time spent in custody prior to 

sentencing involves the legality of sentence and is cognizable under the 

PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 595 (Pa. Super 2007) 

(citation omitted).

This Court has clarified the different claims a prisoner may 

raise regarding credit for time served and the mechanisms for 

raising such claims:

If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an 

erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of 

Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress 

would be an original action in the Commonwealth 

Court challenging the Bureau’s computation. If, on the 

other hand, the alleged error is thought to be 

attributable to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by 

the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad 

subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification 

and/or correction of the sentence imposed.

It [is] only when the petitioner challenges the legality 

of a trial court’s alleged failure to award credit for time 

served as required by law in imposing sentence, that 

a challenge to the sentence [is] deemed cognizable as 

a due process claim in PCRA proceedings.

Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation 

omitted); see also, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a)(1) (“The Commonwealth Court 

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings ... [a]gainst 

the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his 

official capacity....”).
J-S05015-24

- 5 -

Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the trial court did award 

Wheeler credit for time served. See Sentencing Orders, Docket No. 1301-

2019, 6/22/20, at 1-2; Docket No.1294-2019, 3/15/21, at 1; and Docket No. 

1296-2019, 3/15/21, at 1. Our further review of the record reflects that 

Wheeler is arguing that the Department of Corrections misapplied his credit 

for time served. Specifically, in his motion filed with the trial court, Wheeler 

presented the following as a basis for relief:

The DOC rule and law, that is being cited to not comply with the 

[c]ourt’s 6/22/20 and 3/15/21 signed Sentencing Orders for 

Credit for Time Served in Custody applies to sentences when the 

person was on parole, probation or serving a sentence prior to the 

new charged offense resulting in a new conviction and new 

imposed sentence. That is not the case in this matter and 

therefore, the rule and law is inapplicable, but mistakenly 

being applied, and used to not comply with the judicial 

mandates, terms, conditions and the manner of the 

attached Sentencing Orders of 6/22/20 and 3/15/21.

Motion, 3/13/23, at 2, ¶ 7 (verbatim) (emphasis in original).

Because the trial court granted credit for time served at the time it 

imposed the sentences and Wheeler does not challenge the legality of an 

alleged failure to award credit for time served, the claim is not cognizable 

under the PCRA. Moreover, because the claim raised by Wheeler in his motion 

to the trial court challenges the Department of Corrections’ application of his 

credit for time served, the challenge was not properly before the trial court. 

See Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 880. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order 

denying relief on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. Our affirmance of the 

trial court’s decision is without prejudice to Wheeler’s right to pursue his 
J-S05015-24

- 6 -

challenge to the Department of Corrections computation of credit in an original 

action in the Commonwealth Court.8

Order affirmed.

DATE: 05/03/2024

____________________________________________

8 We decline to transfer this appeal to our sister court because the 

Commonwealth’s Court’s case law precludes it from employing its original 

jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of this issue as presented. See 

Commonwealth v. Schill, 647 A.2d 695, 696 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) 

(dismissing case and stating that “although this court has jurisdiction to 

adjudicate a time credit issue concerning the department, this type of case 

must be addressed to our original jurisdiction ... and cannot be brought in a 

post-conviction relief challenge initiated in a court of common pleas.”).