J-S75038-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER HART,

Appellant No. 1480 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered April 2, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0004719-2009

and CP-39-CR-0000563-2010

BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and MUNDY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2014

Christopher Hart, (“Appellant”), is presently incarcerated because on 

August 13, 2010, he pled guilty to a multitude of counts of burglary and 

conspiracy to commit burglary. On October 11, 2010, Appellant was 

sentenced to an aggregate term of not less than six (6) years nor more than 

twenty (20) years in prison.

Approximately three and a half years later, on March 17, 2014, 

Appellant filed a pro se “motion for time credit and corrected commitment.” 

On April 2, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying and dismissing 

Appellant’s motion, noting that it lacked authority to act on it. Appellant 

filed a timely appeal on April 23, 2014. Appellant and the trial court have 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant presents a single issue:
J-S75038-14

- 2 -

Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant’s] Motion for 

Time Credit and Corrected Commitment where it concluded that 

it did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion?

Appellant’s Brief at 7. 

Appellant specifically asserts that “the lower court owed [Appellant] 

credit for time spent in custody (from September 11, 2009 to October 16, 

2009) pursuant to the initial burglary charge in this case.” Id. at 9. Our 

review of the certified record – particularly the thirty (30) Lehigh County 

Sentencing Sheets completed and appended to the October 11, 2010 

sentencing order – reflects that a box was checked on each sheet which 

reads “and credit be given you, as required by law, for all time spent in 

custody, as a result of these criminal charges for which sentence is being 

imposed.” Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Appellant was 

“awarded ... credit time in these cases” and Appellant “is actually challenging 

the computation of his sentences by the Department of Corrections (DOC) 

...” Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/14, at 2. We further agree with the trial 

court’s reasoning:

When a trial court sentences a defendant to state 

incarceration, the computation of the defendant’s sentence, 

including allowable credit time, is left to the DOC. See Barndt 

v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2006); Bright v. Board of Probation and Parole, 831 A.2d 

775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762. 

If one assumes that [Appellant] was accurate in 

contending that the DOC incorrectly calculated his credit time, 

this court lacked jurisdiction to remedy any defect. As the 

Superior Court has noted:
J-S75038-14

- 3 -

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

erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of 

Corrections (the precursor to the DOC), then the 

appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action 

in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s 

computation.

Commonwealth v. Perry, 386 Pa.Super. 534, 537-38, 563 

A.2d 511, 512-13 (1989) (internal citations omitted). See

Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 413 Pa.Super. 42, 604 A.2d 723 

(1992) (explaining the proper course of action for challenging 

the computation of a sentence by state authorities).

Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/14, at 2-3. 

Given the foregoing, we affirm the trial court order denying and 

dismissing Appellant’s motion for time credit and corrected commitment.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/1/2014