J-S03039-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW D. DUFFY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 894 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2023

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

No(s): CP-35-CR-0000467-2022

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW D. DUFFY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 895 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2023

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

No(s): CP-35-CR-0000572-2022

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2024

Matthew D. Duffy (“Duffy”) appeals from the judgments of sentence 

imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (“trial court”) 

following his guilty plea to receiving stolen property and simple assault.1 On 

appeal, Duffy challenges the amounts of his restitution payments and the 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3925(a), 2701(a)(1).
J-S03039-24

- 2 -

absence of credit on his sentence for time he spent in court-ordered inpatient 

rehabilitation. Because the written sentencing orders conflict with the trial 

court’s statements at sentencing, and both the trial court and the 

Commonwealth agree that Duffy is entitled to relief, we vacate his judgments

of sentence and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions.

The record reflects the following pertinent factual and procedural 

histories. The charges at docket CP-35-CR-0000467-2022 arose on August 4, 

2021, when Duffy and another individual burglarized the home of Patricia 

Laboranti (“Laboranti”) and stole jewelry and other items valued at $5,589.00. 

The charges at docket CP-35-CR-0000572-2022 arose on March 25, 2022,

when Duffy punched and choked Gloria Potoski. On December 13, 2022, Duffy 

pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property at docket CP-35-CR0000467-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Burglary”) and one count of 

simple assault at docket CP-35-CR-0000572-2022 (hereinafter referred to as 

the “Assault”). In exchange for his guilty plea, the Commonwealth agreed to 

nolle pros Duffy’s remaining charges.

On May 3, 2023, the trial court orally sentenced Duffy on the record to

six to twelve months of incarceration for the Burglary plus $2,794.50 in 

restitution – half the value of the items taken from Laboranti’s home2 – and 

one to two years of incarceration for Assault plus $669.00 in restitution. See 

____________________________________________

2

 Duffy’s accomplice was responsible for the remaining value of the stolen 

property. See N.T., 5/3/2023, at 13-14.
J-S03039-24

- 3 -

N.T., 5/3/2023, at 13-14. The trial court also stated that it would credit Duffy 

for time he served in prison and in court-ordered inpatient rehabilitation prior 

to sentencing. See id. at 14.

The written sentencing orders, however, do not match the trial court’s 

oral orders dictated on the record. Regarding the Burglary, the written order 

states that he owes $669.00 in restitution rather than the $2,794.50 the trial 

court stated at sentencing. Compare Burglary Sentencing Order, 5/3/2023, 

with N.T., 5/3/2023, at 13-14. The sentencing order for the Assault 

conviction states that he owes $5,589.00 instead of the $669.00 verbally 

ordered by the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing. Compare Assault 

Sentencing Order, 5/3/2023, with N.T., 5/3/2023, at 13. The written orders 

also did not credit Duffy for time he spent in court-ordered inpatient

rehabilitation prior to sentencing. See generally Burglary Sentencing Order, 

5/3/2023; Assault Sentencing Order, 5/3/2023.

On May 12, 2023, Duffy filed a motion for reconsideration of his 

sentence. In this motion, however, Duffy did not raise any of these errors 

with the trial court. See Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 5/12/2023, 

at 1-2. The trial court denied Duffy’s motion on May 22, 2023.

On June 20, 2023, Duffy timely appealed both orders to this Court.3 

Both the trial court and Duffy have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of 

____________________________________________

3

 On November 20, 2023, this Court sua sponte consolidated Duffy’s appeals.
J-S03039-24

- 4 -

Appellate Procedure 1925, and Duffy now presents the following issues for our 

review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

determined that [Duffy] was responsible for paying only half 

of the $5,589.00 in restitution, but then issued a sentencing 

order requiring [him] to pay the full $5,589.00 in 

restitution?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered 

[Duffy] to pay restitution in the amount of $ 5,589.00 

related to the simple assault conviction and restitution in the 

amount of $669.00 for the receiving stolen property 

conviction when these restitution amounts were contrary to 

the record and what the trial court stated at the sentencing 

hearing?

3. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it 

failed to give [Duffy] credit for court[-]ordered inpatient 

treatment?

Duffy’s Brief at 3.

Duffy’s first two issues both claim error based upon the discrepancies 

between the trial court’s statements at sentencing and the written sentencing 

orders outlined above. See id. at 12-16, 17-19. Neither the trial court nor 

the Commonwealth dispute that Duffy is entitled to relief. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/23/2023, at 4-5; Commonwealth’s Brief at 5-6. As the applicable 

legal principles are the same for both issues, we address them together.

Our Supreme Court has stated that issues relating to errors in a 

sentencing order raise a question of law. Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 

1219, 1225 (Pa. 2013). “[T]hus, our scope of review is plenary, and our 

standard of review is de novo.” Id.
J-S03039-24

- 5 -

The law bestows upon a trial court the power to modify a criminal 

sentence within thirty days of the entry of the order unless a party has 

appealed that order. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505; Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 

A.3d 543, 548 (Pa. Super. 2019). After thirty days, the trial court generally 

loses the ability to amend a sentencing order other than “clear clerical errors.” 

Kremer, 206 A.3d at 548. A trial court may correct clear clerical errors at 

any time, even a matter pending on appeal. See Commonwealth v. 

Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 65-67 (Pa. 2007) (holding that the divestiture of 

jurisdiction does “not impinge on [the] time-honored inherent power of courts” 

to “correct patent errors”).

The errors complained of here are clear clerical errors. There is no 

question that at Duffy’s sentencing hearing, the trial court directed him to pay 

$2,794.50 (i.e., half the value of the property Duffy and his accomplice took 

from Laboranti’s home) in restitution for the Burglary and $669.00 for the 

Assault. N.T., 5/3/2023, at 2, 13-14. The written order transposed the 

numbers stated on the record, resulting in an incorrect amount of restitution 

being assigned to the wrong conviction. Duffy, the Commonwealth, and the 

trial court all agree. Trial Court Opinion, 8/23/2023, at 4-5; Duffy’s Brief at 

12-19; Commonwealth’s Brief at 5-6. As the law permits the trial court to 

correct such errors in its sentencing orders, we vacate the May 3, 2023 orders 

and remand for their correction and reentry.
J-S03039-24

- 6 -

For his third issue, Duffy argues that the written sentencing orders 

erroneously fail to give him credit for time served in court-ordered inpatient

rehabilitation prior to sentencing, rendering his sentence illegal. Duffy’s Brief 

at 19-22. Once again, both the trial court and the Commonwealth agree that 

he is entitled to relief. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/23/2023, at 6; 

Commonwealth’s Brief at 5-6.

A claim based on a trial court’s failure to give full credit for time served 

is a challenge implicating the legality of a sentence. Commonwealth v. Lee, 

182 A.3d 481, 483 (Pa. Super. 2018).

4 Our scope of review is plenary and 

our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court 

committed an error of law. Id. at 484.

The Sentencing Code requires a defendant to receive credit for all time 

spent in custody for a particular crime:

Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term shall be 

given to the defendant for all time spent in custody as a result of 

the criminal charge for which a prison sentence is imposed or as 

a result of the conduct on which such a charge is based. Credit 

shall include credit for time spent in custody prior to trial, during 

trial, pending sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.

____________________________________________

4 Generally, an issue raised on appeal is waived unless the appellant raised 

and preserved the claim in the trial court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). “A challenge that 

implicates the legality of an appellant’s sentence, however, is an exception to 

this issue preservation requirement,” and we may decide the claim regardless 

of preservation. Commonwealth v. Thorne, 276 A.3d 1192, 1196 (Pa. 

2022) (citation omitted).
J-S03039-24

- 7 -

42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1); see also Commonwealth v. Shull, 148 A.3d 820, 

847 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“The principle underlying [Section 9760] is that a 

defendant should be given credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing 

for a particular offense.”). This includes time spent in court-ordered 

rehabilitation. Shull, 148 A.3d at 848.

The record reflects that prior to sentencing, Duffy spent time in courtordered inpatient rehabilitation. See N.T., 5/3/2023, at 14. The trial court 

recognized this at sentencing and expressly stated that it would give him 

credit for time served in court-ordered inpatient rehabilitation, but the 

sentencing orders are silent on this issue. Compare id., with Burglary 

Sentencing Order, 5/3/2023 & Assault Sentencing Order, 5/3/2023. We 

therefore conclude that he is entitled to relief on this basis as well. See Shull, 

148 A.3d at 847-48.

Accordingly, we vacate Duffy’s judgments of sentence for the Burglary

and the Assault. We remand the case to the trial court for correction of the 

identified errors and reentry of the sentencing orders.

Judgments of sentence vacated. Case remanded with instructions. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S03039-24

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/28/2024