J-S66010-15 

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

LAMAR THOMPKINS, 

 Appellant No. 1857 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 19, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014292-2013 

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

 Appellant, Lamar Thompkins, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on August 19, 2014 following his guilty pleas to carrying a firearm 

without a license, persons not to possess a firearm, possession of marijuana, 

driving while operating license is suspended or revoked, failing to drive on 

the right side of the road, improper stop, and required financial 

responsibility.1 Upon review, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence 

and remand for additional proceedings. 

 We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as 

follows. On June 3, 2014, Appellant pled guilty to the aforementioned 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a), 35 P.S. §780-113(a)(31), 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3351, and 

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786(f), respectively. 
J-S66010-15 

- 2 - 

charges. On August 19, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate term of five to 10 years of imprisonment. Appellant filed a 

permissive nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion that the trial court denied on 

October 16, 2014. This timely appeal resulted.2

 On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: 

I. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence

when it failed to determine, at the time of sentencing, 

whether [Appellant] is an eligible offender under the 

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive [(RRRI)] Act, 

thereby violating 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a)? 

II. Whether the trial court abused its sentencing 

discretion when it failed to consider relevant and 

required sentencing criteria, including the character, 

personal history, and rehabilitative needs of 

[Appellant], thereby violating 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)? 

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

 In his first issue presented, Appellant avers: 

[Appellant’s] sentence is illegal. In Pennsylvania, the trial 

court is statutorily required to determine, at the time of 

sentencing, whether the defendant is an eligible offender 

under the RRRI Act. In the instant case, however, the trial 

court failed to make that mandatory determination. When 

no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, it 

is illegal, and an illegal sentence cannot be allowed to 

stand. Accordingly, [Appellant’s] sentence must be

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2014. On November 

21, 2014, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant 

complied timely. The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) on May 20, 2015. 
J-S66010-15 

- 3 - 

vacated, and the matter must be remanded for a new 

sentencing hearing. 

Id. at 17. The Commonwealth concedes the issue, stating it “is constrained 

to agree with Appellant that his case should be remanded for resentencing.” 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. 

 We agree. Our decision in Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868 

(Pa. Super. 2010) is controlling. In Robinson, this Court examined the 

following language of the RRRI Act: 

(b.1) Recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum 

sentence.—The court shall determine if the defendant is 

eligible for a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum 

sentence under 61 Pa.C.S. Ch. 45 (relating to recidivism 

risk reduction incentive). If the defendant is eligible, the 

court shall impose a recidivism risk reduction incentive 

minimum sentence in addition to a minimum sentence and 

maximum sentence except, if the defendant was previously 

sentenced to two or more recidivism risk reduction incentive 

minimum sentences, the court shall have the discretion to 

impose a sentence with no recidivism risk reduction

incentive minimum. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1) (emphasis added). The Robinson Court 

determined that because the legislature implemented the term “shall,” it 

statutorily mandated trial courts to determine whether a defendant meets 

the RRRI eligibility requirements. If the trial court determines a defendant 

meets those requirements, it must impose a RRRI minimum. “Accordingly, 

where the trial court fails to make a statutorily required determination 

regarding a defendant's eligibility for an RRRI minimum sentence as 

required, the sentence is illegal.” Robinson at 871. 
J-S66010-15 

- 4 - 

 Here, the trial court admits, “it did not make a specific finding” 

regarding Appellant’s RRRI eligibility. Trial Court Opinion, 5/20/2015, at 3. 

However, the trial court determined that Appellant’s sentence was legal 

because “it was clear he was not eligible for a reduced sentence.” Id. More 

specifically, “[a]t the sentencing hearing, [the trial court] noted [Appellant’s] 

extensive criminal history and offenses including aggravated assault, drug 

and gun charges, criminal mischief, etc., all of which disqualified him from 

eligibility [under] the RRRI [Act]. Id. at 2-3. 

 The fact remains that the trial court is statutorily mandated to make a 

determination regarding RRRI Act eligibility and it did not. Accordingly, we 

are constrained to vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand this 

matter for a determination of whether Appellant is RRRI eligible pursuant to 

61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503. 

 Appellant’s second issue challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 22-33. However, having already determined 

Appellant is entitled to relief because his sentence is illegal, this issue is 

moot. 

 Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for further 

proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered. 
J-S66010-15 

- 5 - 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/19/2015