J

- S38021

- 20

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

v.

JIMMIE L. WALLACE

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 462 MDA 2020 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered February 26, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 22

- CR

- 0001076

- 2011

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2020 Jimmie L. Wallace appeals pro se from the order dismissing his Motion for Modification of Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc , which the court treated as a n untimely Post Conviction Rel ief Act (“PCRA”) 1 petition. Wallace contends the court erred in treating his Motion as a PCRA petition, and in failing to appoint counsel. We affirm. A jury convicted Wallac e of aggravated assault in 2012, and t he court sentenced him to ten to 20 years’ i ncarceration. We affirmed the judgment of sentence in 2013, and the Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal in 2014. Wallace has since filed three PC RA petitions, none of which has resulted in relief.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S38021

- 20

- 2

-

Wallace filed the instant “Motion for Modification of Sentence Nunc Pro
Tunc ” pro se on December 23, 2019. In the Motion, Wallace claimed that his sentence fell above the aggravated Guidelines range of a five

- year minimum sentence, the trial court erred in failing to consider the Sentencing Guidelines, and the trial court did not provide adequate reason for deviating from the Guidelines

. See Motion for Modification of Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc , 12/23/19,
at 1. The trial court treate d the Motion as a PCRA petit ion and found it to be untimely. The court issued notice of its intent to dismiss the Motion/P etition under Rule 907

. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 (1)

. Wallace responded, claiming his Motion/P etition was timely under the PCRA’s governmental interference exception. Wallace claimed that his petition was timely because he filed an application for clemency with the Board of Pardon in 2017, and the Board considers whether any appeals are pending when deciding whether to
commute a sentence. The court dismissed the Motion / Petition , and Wallace appealed. In Wallace’s one

- page brief, he argues the trial court erred in treating his Motion for Modification of Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc as a PCRA petition. He also argues he has a right to the assistance of counsel. 2

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 The Commonwealth argues we should dismiss the appeal as Wallace’s brief fails to conform to the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 2111

. We declin e to do so, as Wallace’s failing s in that regard have not hindered our review in this case

.J

- S38021

- 20

- 3

-

As the trial court observes in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the only issue Wallace raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement was his claim that he was denied his right to counsel. See Trial Ct. Op., filed Mar. 31, 2020, at 2. By failing to include in his Rule 1925(b) stat ement the issue of whether the trial court erred in treating his Motion as a PCRA petition, Wallace has waived it. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). In any event, even if the court erred in treating Wallace’s Motion as a PCRA petition, it was still untimely. Wallace’s Motion challenged the discretionary aspects of sentencing, and a criminal defendant must seek such relief from the trial court in a post

- sentence motion, which the defendant must file within 10 days after the imposition of sentence

. See Pa.R.Crim .P. 720(A)(1); Commonwealth v. Torres , 223 A.3d 715, 717 (Pa.Super. 2019)

. Wallace filed hi s motion well after that deadline. Although the title of Wallace’s
Motion suggests he intended to seek post

- sentence relief nunc pro tunc , Wallace did not, and does not, assert any reason why he was entitled to nunc pro tunc relief. Cf. Commonwealth v. Patterson , 940 A.2d 493, 499 (Pa.Super. 2007) (finding grounds for relief on un timely post

- sentence motion where trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 720). T he court thus did not err in d ismissing the Motion

. Regarding Wallace’s second issue, surrounding his right to counsel, Wallace has not provided any authority or argument to support his assertion that the court should have appointed him counsel for the sub ject Motion. The only authorities W allace cites for this issue relate to the right to counsel in theJ

- S38021

- 20

- 4

-

PCRA setting , and thus do not apply here

. See Wallace’s Br. at 1 (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 904 and Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 720 A.2d 693, 699 (Pa. 1998) ). Wall ace has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/19/2020