Court Opinion

ID: 9400889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:11:15.168655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.735127
License: Public Domain

J-S16004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DENA MARIE DAVIS                           :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2950 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 27, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-45-CR-0002517-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                   FILED JUNE 9, 2023

        Appellant, Dena Marie Davis, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on October 27, 2022,1 after the court sentenced her to a 1-to-2-year

term of county confinement. Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of

her sentence and the trial court’s calculation of her credit for time served.

After careful review, we remand for further proceedings.

        On September 8, 2020, police arrested Appellant for, inter alia,

Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.2

Appellant was unable to furnish bail and, thus, remained confined.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant characterized her appeal as being from the “order entered in this
matter on the 24th of October, 2022.” Notice of Appeal, 11/17/22. That order,
which the prothonotary docketed on October 27, 2022, imposed an amended
judgment of sentence. We have adjusted the caption accordingly.

2   35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (32).
J-S16004-23

       On September 24, 2020, on a separate, unrelated docket, the court

found Appellant in violation of her probation, revoked probation, and

resentenced her to 3 to 6 months’ confinement (the “VOP Sentence”).3

       On December 1, 2020, while Appellant was serving the VOP Sentence,

the court in the instant case granted Appellant’s request to change her bail to

unsecured. Appellant, however, remained confined on the VOP Sentence until

March 2021.4

       On May 23, 2022, Appellant pleaded guilty in the instant case to the

above crimes. The court scheduled sentencing for July 25, 2022, and ordered

the Monroe County Probation Department to prepare a pre-sentence

investigation report. In preparation of the report, the probation department

requested that Appellant provide a urine sample for drug screening. Appellant,

however, refused to provide a urine sample.

       At the July 25, 2022 sentencing hearing, the trial court entered an order

continuing sentencing to August 29, 2022. In the same order, the court

commanded Appellant to report to the probation department the following

day, July 26, 2022, to submit a urine sample. Appellant failed to do so.

____________________________________________

3  See docket number CP-45-CR-0000878-2017. The docket lists the
disposition date as September 25, 2020, but indicates that Appellant began
serving the VOP Sentence the day before, on September 24, 2020.

4 It appears that Appellant requested the change of bail in anticipation of a
motion for parole on the VOP Sentence. On December 31, 2020, however, the
VOP court denied Appellant’s parole request. Appellant, thus, appears to have
served the maximum term of the VOP sentence.

                                           -2-
J-S16004-23

       On July 29, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke

Appellant’s bail. On August 11, 2022, the court held a hearing at which

Appellant failed to appear. As a result, the court revoked Appellant’s bail and

issued a bench warrant for her arrest. Appellant failed to appear for the August

29, 2022 sentencing hearing.

       At some point between August 29 and September 6, 2022, Appellant

returned to the Commonwealth’s custody. On October 27, 2022, the trial court

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 1 to 2 years’ county

confinement.5 The court awarded Appellant a 25-day credit for time served.

Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal and both she and the trial court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Appellant raises challenges to the discretionary aspects of her sentence

and the legality of her sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 9-14 (unpaginated). Before

we can address the merits of these issues, however, we must address a

briefing defect that precludes our review of Appellant’s discretionary

sentencing claim.

       Pa.R.A.P. 2116 requires that an appellant include in her brief a

Statement of Questions Involved. Of particular importance to this appeal, the

failure to raise a discretionary sentencing claim in the Rule 2116 Statement

____________________________________________

5 The court had initially sentenced Appellant on September 26, 2022, to a
term of 1 to 2 years’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence
motion requesting that the court impose county confinement, so that she
could receive county-level addiction treatment. The court granted Appellant’s
motion and resentenced her on October 27, 2022.

                                           -3-
J-S16004-23

results in waiver of that claim on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2116(b) (“Failure to comply

with [Pa.R.A.P. 2116(b)] shall constitute a waiver of all issues relating to the

discretionary aspects of sentence.”).

       Appellant failed to include in her brief a Rule 2116 Statement of

Questions     Involved.6    We     are,   thus,   constrained   to   find   Appellant’s

discretionary sentencing claim waived.

       We will, however, address Appellant’s legality claim, because such a

claim cannot be waived. Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa.

Super. 2013). See also Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 595 (Pa.

Super. 2007) (observing that the failure to award credit for time served prior

to sentencing involves the legality of sentence). Issues relating to the legality

of a sentence are questions of law over which we exercise a de novo standard

of review and plenary scope of review. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d

1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018).

       At sentencing, the trial court awarded Appellant a 25-day credit for time

served. Appellant argues that she was entitled to an 84-day credit, for the

period from September 8, 2020, when police arrested her in the underlying

case, to December 1, 2020, when the court amended her bail to unsecured.

Appellant’s Br. at 12-13.

       The trial court opined that Appellant was entitled to credit for only the

period from September 8, 2020, to September 24, 2020. Trial Ct. Op.,
____________________________________________

6 Appellant’s brief is likewise missing a Statement of the Case and Summary
of Argument, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117 and 2118, respectively.

                                           -4-
J-S16004-23

12/28/22, at 2. The court explained that when it imposed the VOP sentence

on September 24, 2020, which Appellant began serving immediately,

Appellant could no longer accrue credit toward the instant sentence. Id. We

agree.

       “A defendant shall be given credit for any days spent in custody prior to

the imposition of sentence, but only if such commitment is on the offense for

which sentence is imposed.” Infante, 63 A.3d at 367 (citation omitted). A

defendant is not, however, entitled to have a time-credit double counted.

Commonwealth v. Vidal, 198 A.3d 1097, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2018). In other

words, once a defendant is serving time on a sentence, that time cannot be

credited toward another sentence. See id.

       Here, Appellant was entitled to a time credit from the date that she was

arrested on the instant charges to the date that the court imposed the

unrelated VOP Sentence. Appellant was, thus, entitled to credit for the period

from September 8, 2020, to September 24, 2020.7

____________________________________________

7 Appellant also requests that this Court vacate her sentence and remand for
resentencing because “nowhere in the record does it reflect that Appellant was
incarcerated for other cases” between September 8, 2020, and December 1,
2020. Appellant’s Br. at 12. This argument is disingenuous at best, as
Appellant is certainly aware that on September 24, 2020, the VOP court
sentenced her to a term of incarceration on Docket 878-2017. Additionally, it
appears that the sentencing court was aided by a presentence investigation
(PSI) report and, thus, would have been aware of Appellant’s criminal history.
Moreover, even if the court was not aided by a PSI report, it was within the
court’s power to take judicial notice of other trial court dockets. Pa.R.E. 201.

                                           -5-
J-S16004-23

       It is unclear, however, how the trial court determined that Appellant is

entitled to 25 days of time credit.8 The period from September 8, 2020, to

September 24, 2020, is only 16 days. We, thus, remand the instant case to

the trial court for it to recalculate Appellant’s credit for time served, to ensure

that Appellant receives the credit to which she is entitled. We affirm

Appellant’s judgment of sentence in all other respects.

       Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2023

____________________________________________

8In its October 27, 2022 sentencing order, the court adopted the 25-day time-
credit it imposed in the September 26, 2022 sentence. Order, 10/27/22, at ¶
2. The September 26, 2022 sentencing order, however, does not explain the
rationale for the 25-day credit, and Appellant failed to have either sentencing
hearing transcribed. Moreover, the trial court did not explain its time-credit
calculation in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. A remand is, thus, necessary.

                                           -6-