J-A01001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

HENRY JAMES JACKSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 87 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-CR-0005024-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MAY 7, 2024

Henry James Jackson appeals from the judgment of sentence,1 entered 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, after the court, following

a stipulated non-jury trial, found him guilty of one count each of driving under 

the influence (DUI)—general impairment2 and DUI—highest rate of alcohol.

3

 

After careful review, we affirm.

On August 17, 2021, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Brookhaven Borough 

Police Officer Ryan Eastman was on duty in his marked patrol vehicle in the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Jackson purports to appeal from the November 28, 2022 order denying his 

post-sentence motion. However, the appeal properly lies from the judgment 

of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 

(Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc).

2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).

3 Id. at § 3802(c).
J-A01001-24

- 2 -

area of Bridgewater Road and observed a car driving towards him “at an 

unusual[ly] slow speed[.]” N.T. Suppression Hearing, 6/1/22, at 5. Officer 

Eastman turned his patrol vehicle around and followed the car for 

approximately one mile, during which he observed “the high beams to be 

activated and deactivated within seconds of each other[, the car] touch[] the 

left double yellow line three times[,] and then [] swerve over and touch the 

right white solid line right after touching the double yellow line.” Id. at 5-6. 

Officer Eastman testified that the combination of those actions, the time of 

night, the proximity of the car’s location to a bar, and his professional 

experience indicated to him that the driver was under the influence of alcohol 

or a controlled substance. Id. at 6. 

Officer Eastman activated his lights and sirens and initiated a traffic stop 

of the car driven by Jackson. Id. Jackson had bloodshot and glassy eyes and 

Eastman “could smell the odor of alcoholic beverage emanating from his 

vehicle.” Id. at 7. Jackson agreed to submit to field sobriety tests (FST),

exited his car, and Officer Subers administered several FSTs, including the one 

leg stand. Id. at 7, 13-14. During the one leg stand, the officers stopped the 

test because “[Jackson] put his foot down three times, which is deemed unsafe 

to continue.” Id. at 7. After officers observed several indicators that Jackson 

was under the influence, the officers arrested him and transported him for a 

blood draw. Id. at 8. The results of the blood draw indicated Jackson had a 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .248. Id. at 9. Subsequently, Jackson 

was charged with the above-stated offenses.
J-A01001-24

- 3 -

The trial court set forth the relevant procedural history as follows:

[Jackson] filed a motion to suppress on March 10, 2022. A hearing 

was held on that motion on June 1, 2022[,] wherein the 

Commonwealth presented the testimony of [Officer Eastman] and 

[Jackson] testified on his own behalf. Prior to [Jackson’s] 

testimony at the suppression [hearing], there was discussion 

between defense counsel, the assistant district attorney, and the 

court, informing [Jackson] that his testimony at the suppression 

hearing could not be used at the trial, unless he were to testify. 

(N.T. [Suppression Hearing], 6/1/22, [at] 17)[.] Following the 

hearing, [the trial] court denied suppression. The matter was 

listed for a status hearing on July 26, 2022. At that hearing, 

exhibits were submitted for a stipulated bench trial. (See record 

generally, [Exhibits] C[]1-C3; D1-D2, dated 7/26/22)[.] 

Thereafter, [Jackson] was found guilty and sentenced on 

September 6, 2022[,] to 96 hours to 6 months [of] incarceration.

[Jackson] filed a motion for extraordinary relief and/or 

reconsideration of sentence on September 16, 2022[,] seeking to 

raise issues of ineffective assistance of counsel[,] as well as issues 

regarding the length of the sentence imposed. The [trial court] 

denied the motion on November 29, 2023. 

Trial Court Opinion, 3/3/23, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Jackson raises 

the following issues for our review:

1. [Was trial counsel ineffective for failing] to cross-examine the 

Commonwealth’s sole witness on fundamental inconsistencies in 

his testimony [between the preliminary hearing and suppression 

hearing]?

2. [Was trial counsel ineffective when he] incorrectly advised his 

client that his testimony at the suppression hearing could not and 

would not be used against him at trial?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing [Jackson] 

to 96 hours’ incarceration without any argument or reasoning, 

thereby denying [Jackson] his right to allocution?
J-A01001-24

- 4 -

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

Regarding Jackson’s first two claims on appeal, we recognize that, 

generally, “a petitioner should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel until collateral review.” Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 

726, 738 (Pa. 2002). However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has 

recognized limited exceptions when ineffectiveness claims may be reviewed 

on direct appeal. See generally Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 

(Pa. 2013). The Holmes Court identified two exceptions:

First, we appreciate that there may be extraordinary 

circumstances where a discrete claim (or claims) of trial counsel 

ineffectiveness is apparent from the record and meritorious to the 

extent that immediate consideration best serves the interests of 

justice; and we hold that trial courts retain their discretion 

to entertain such claims.

Second, with respect to other cases and claims . . . where the 

defendant seeks to litigate multiple or prolix claims of counsel 

ineffectiveness, including non-record-based claims, on postverdict motions and direct appeal, we repose discretion in the trial 

courts to entertain such claims, but only if (1) there is good cause 

shown, and (2) the unitary review so indulged is preceded by the 

defendant’s knowing and express waiver of his entitlement to seek 

[Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)] review from his conviction and 

sentence, including an express recognition that the waiver 

subjects further collateral review to the time and serial petition 

restrictions of the PCRA. 

Id. at 563-64 (internal citations and footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). 
J-A01001-24

- 5 -

Instantly, an incomplete record4 prevents us from determining whether 

extraordinary circumstances exist, and, in any event, such claims are 

entertained at the discretion of the trial court. See Holmes, 79 A.3d at 563. 

Jackson does not argue that the second exception applies, see Appellant’s 

Brief at 9-14, nor does our review of the record suggest that Jackson expressly 

waived his entitlement to seek PCRA review, despite his short sentence. See 

Holmes, 79 A.3d at 564 (requiring express waiver of PCRA review). Thus, 

we are unable to review Jackson’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel on direct appeal and must dismiss them, without prejudice, for 

Jackson to raise them in a timely PCRA petition. See Commonwealth v. 

Watson, 2024 PA Super 15, at *10 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 29, 2024) (since 

2002, “Pennsylvania law has been clear . . . that ineffective assistance of 

____________________________________________

4 The certified record does not contain a transcript from the July 26, 2022 

status hearing wherein the parties agreed to and submitted exhibits for a 

stipulated non-jury trial. Moreover, upon an informal inquiry, our 

Prothonotary was informed that no transcript had been filed, as counsel failed 

to submit a request for the transcript. As such, the clerk of courts did not 

have a transcript from the status hearing that could be made a part of the 

certified record and forwarded to this Court.

We also note that no there are no written stipulations in the certified record. 

Best practice suggests written stipulations, accompanied by a signed waiver 

of any right to trial granted under the Constitution and the rules of our courts, 

be submitted to the court. See Pa. Jud. Conduct Bd. R.P. 502(D). In its 

opinion, the trial court stated, “exhibits were submitted for a stipulated bench 

trial. (See record generally, C[]1-C3; D1-D2, dated 7/26/22)[.]” Trial Court 

Opinion, 3/3/23, at 1. However, the “Exhibits” filed with this Court include 

several marked C1, none marked C2, several marked D1, and each with 

differing dates. As such, we cannot be certain which exhibits were submitted 

to the court. 
J-A01001-24

- 6 -

counsel claims must be deferred to PCRA review” unless narrow exceptions 

to general rule are met) (emphasis original).

5

Jackson’s third claim purports to challenge the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence. Jackson contends that the trial court failed to provide him an 

opportunity to exercise his right to allocution prior to sentencing and, further, 

that the court failed to place its reasons for imposing its sentence on the 

record at the time of sentencing, and that both issues raise substantial 

questions invoking our discretionary review. See Appellant’s Brief, at 5. 

Jackson’s claim, however, raises two distinct issues, which we address 

separately.

First, while Jackson characterizes the former claim as a challenge to the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence, failure to grant a defendant the right of 

allocution constitutes a waivable legal error. See Commonwealth v. 

Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). Jackson failed to raise 

this claim with the trial court, either at the sentencing hearing or in his postsentence motion. See Jacobs, 900 A.2d at 376-77 (holding “a denial of the 

right of allocution does not create a non-waivable challenge to the legality of 

the sentence[]”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). 

Therefore, the issue is waived. 

____________________________________________

5 Non-precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their 

persuasive value, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
J-A01001-24

- 7 -

Second, Jackson claims that the court failed to place its reasons for 

imposing sentence on the record at the time of sentencing. It is wellestablished that a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not 

appealable as of right; rather, a defendant’s appeal is considered a petition 

for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 

1386-87 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en banc). Before this Court can address such a 

discretionary challenge, an appellant must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by: 

(1) filing a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) properly 

preserving the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) including in his brief a concise statement 

of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); 

and (4) raising a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 

A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015). The existence of a substantial question 

must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. CruzCenteno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995). 

In this case, Jackson failed to properly preserve the issue in his postsentence motion, and therefore his claim is waived. It is well established that 

issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first 

time on appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; see also Commonwealth v. Mann, 
J-A01001-24

- 8 -

820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (challenges to discretionary aspects of 

sentencing must be raised during sentencing or in post-sentence motions).6 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

raised herein are dismissed without prejudice for Jackson to raise them in a 

timely filed PCRA petition, along with any other claims for post-conviction 

relief, should he so choose. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

6 Jackson’s post-sentence motion included the following claim:

Finally, petitioner asks this court to reconsider its sentence of 96 

hours’ incarceration. Instead, petitioner respectfully requests that 

this court impose only the mandatory minimum sentence for 

driving under the influence—highest tier. This reduction in 

sentence would be appropriate for several reasons: 1) petitioner 

was cooperative with police throughout the incident; 2) there was 

no accident or injury; 3) he voluntarily consented to a blood draw; 

and 4) he has no prior criminal history. 

See Motion for Extraordinary Relief and/or Reconsideration of Sentence, 

9/16/22, at ¶ 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). At the post-sentence 

hearing, Jackson did not argue the above claim—that the court failed to 

consider any mitigating factors—or any other discretionary aspect of 

sentencing claim. See N.T. Post-Sentence Hearing, 9/29/22, at 10. Jackson 

now alleges, for the first time, that the court failed to place its reasons for 

imposing sentence on the record at the time of sentencing. See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 4; see also Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 1/13/23, 

at ¶ 3. As such, Jackson did not give the sentencing court an opportunity to 

reconsider or modify his sentence on this basis and his claim is waived. See 

Mann, 820 A.2d at 794; see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 

692-93 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellant must raise specific claim “regarding the 

sentencing court’s alleged failure” to give sentencing court “an opportunity to 

reconsider or modify [the] sentence”). 
J-A01001-24

- 9 -

Date: 5/7/2024