Court Opinion

ID: 9940114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 17:12:34.746554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.517305
License: Public Domain

J-S03007-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JEFFREY MICHAEL DARGIS                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1069 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 30, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-54-CR-0001563-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                            FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2024

       Appellant, Jeffrey Michael Dargis, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered June 30, 2023. We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this case as follows.

        Appellant was arrested and charged for incidents on December
        5, 2018, December 15, 2018, January 8, 2019, and January 31,
        2019, where he sold illicit drugs to a confidential
        informant/undercover agent. After a jury trial on July 22, 2020,
        Appellant was convicted in absentia of . . . delivery of a
        controlled substance (fentanyl)[1] . . . for [the] sale that
        occurred on January 8, 2019[] and . . . delivery of a counterfeit
        substance[2] . . . for [the] sale that occurred on January 31,
        2019.

        On February 16, 2021, the Honorable William Baldwin . . .
        sentenced Appellant to a minimum of [five] years and to a
____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113)(a)(30).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113)(a)(30).
J-S03007-24

        maximum of 10 years on each conviction, with the sentences to
        run consecutively. Appellant received an aggregate [term] of
        10 to 20 year[s’ incarceration] with time served credit of 35
        days. [Appellant’s judgment of sentence was affirmed by this
        Court on October 8, 2021. See Commonwealth v. Dargis,
        2021 WL 4704810, *1 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2021). Appellant did
        not seek further appellate review.]

        Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief under the
        Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]
        § 9541 et seq. on October 4, 2022.

                                           ***

        [In his PCRA petition,] Appellant [] asserted . . . that the
        [offense gravity score (“OGS”)] for [his conviction for delivery
        of a counterfeit substance] was incorrectly calculated at [nine]
        and relied upon by Judge Baldwin, rather than the correct OGS
        of [six].[3] On December 30, 2022, at oral argument [on
        Appellant’s PCRA petition,] the Commonwealth stipulated that
        [the trial court used incorrect sentencing guidelines in
        calculating the range of Appellant’s sentence for delivery of a
        counterfeit substance] and conceded [that] the guideline range
        that should have been applied was 21 to 27 months, reflecting
        an [OGS] of [six].

        The [PCRA c]ourt then heard testimony on [Appellant’s PCRA
        petition’s] sole remaining issue[, which claimed that] trial
____________________________________________

3 A PCRA petitioner may obtain relief if he demonstrates that the trial court

imposed “a sentence greater than the lawful maximum,” i.e., issued an illegal
sentence. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vii). Our case law, however, firmly
establishes that “[a] claim that the sentencing court used an incorrect OGS is
a challenge to the discretionary aspects of one’s sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 625 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Archer,
722 A.2d 203, 211 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc); Commonwealth v.
Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012) (accord). In this instance,
the PCRA court appears to have treated Appellant’s claim as challenge to the
legality of his sentence. Moreover, as will be discussed infra, the PCRA court
denied and dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition but, ultimately, vacated
Appellant’s original sentence and subsequently resentenced him. This was
error. Nonetheless, because the court already resentenced Appellant and
Appellant’s current challenge is waived on appeal, we will not disturb
Appellant’s new sentence.

                                           -2-
J-S03007-24

       counsel, Kent Watkins, Esquire, was ineffective for failing to
       pursue a sentencing entrapment defense. Appellant [then]
       requested to be resentenced on all counts, with the correct
       [OGS] for    [his conviction for delivery of a counterfeit
       substance], and be allowed to raise the issue of sentencing
       entrapment at his re-sentencing hearing.

       By order dated March 17, 2023, [the PCRA c]ourt denied and
       dismissed Appellant’s PCRA petition with an accompanying
       opinion wherein [the court] determined that [Appellant’s]
       sentencing entrapment argument lacked merit. For unknown
       reasons, [the PCRA court] did not immediately vacate
       Appellant’s sentence or [schedule his resentencing] in accord
       with counsel’s stipulation, as noted supra. However, on May
       17, 2023, [the PCRA court] vacated Appellant’s February 19,
       2021 sentence and scheduled a new sentencing hearing for
       June 20, 2023. That hearing was subsequently continued to
       June 30, 2023, due to a conflict with the Pennsylvania
       Department of Corrections. [Re-sentencing] finally took place
       on June 30, 2023. Thomas Marsilio, Esquire[,] appeared on
       behalf of Appellant at this sentencing hearing and [the court]
       sentenced Appellant to [five] to 10 years confinement on [his
       conviction for delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl)] and
       [a consecutive sentence of two] to [four] years confinement on
       [his conviction for delivery of a counterfeit substance.]

       On July 27, 2023, Appellant, through appellate counsel, James
       G. Conville, Esquire, filed a notice of appeal . . . and a [Rule
       1925(b) concise statement pursuant to court order] on August
       14, 2023.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/23, at 1-3 (footnotes added) (footnotes, internal

citations, and unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

       Whether the trial court erred by failing to recognize the concept
       of sentencing entrapment as a mitigating factor to be
       considered when imposing [Appellant’s] sentence?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

                                     -3-
J-S03007-24

       Herein, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.4

See Commonwealth v. Kittrell, 19 A.3d 532, 538-539 (Pa. Super. 2011)

(explaining that the appellant’s claim that he was a victim of sentencing

entrapment constituted a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his

sentence).      Therefore, to reach the merits of Appellant’s discretionary

sentencing challenge, we must conduct a four-part analysis to determine

        (1) whether [A]ppellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
        Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
        preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
        sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [A]ppellant's brief
        has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether
        there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from
        is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [see] 42
        Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations

omitted).    “Only if the appeal satisfies [the aforementioned four-part test]

may we proceed to decide the substantive merits of Appellant's claim.”

Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149, 1159-1160 (Pa. Super. 2017).

       A review of the certified record reveals that Appellant failed to raise his

issue at resentencing on June 30, 2023. In addition, Appellant did not file a

post-sentence motion following the June 30, 2023 proceeding.            As such,

Appellant failed to preserve this issue for our review. See Kittrell, 19 A.3d

____________________________________________

4 Because Appellant obtained PCRA relief in the form of resentencing, he may

lodge an appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See
Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 982 (Pa. Super. 2018) (addressing
the appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence after he
obtained relief under the PCRA in the form of resentencing).

                                           -4-
J-S03007-24

at 538 (“[W]e note that ‘[i]ssues challenging the discretionary aspects of a

sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim

to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such efforts, an

objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.’”) (citation

omitted). We are therefore constrained to conclude that Appellant’s challenge

is waived and precluded from addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim.5

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 On July 28, 2023, 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
filed a timely concise statement, raising the following issues:

        1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an
           unduly harsh sentence considering the facts of the case?

        2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective at trial and during
           [Appellant’s] sentencing hearing?
Appellant’s 1925(b) Concise Statement, 8/14/23, at 1. On appeal, Appellant
claims that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that the
Commonwealth, through an orchestrated scheme of “sentencing entrapment,”
manipulated the charges filed against Appellant so as to subject him to harsher
penalties. See Appellant’s Brief at 4 and 10. This issue is substantively
different than those included in Appellant’s 1925(b) statement and, therefore,
is raised for the first time on appeal. In general, “[i]ssues not raised in the
trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa.
1998) (“[F]rom this date forward, in order to preserve their claims for
appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders
them to file a Statement of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule
1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).
Thus, for this additional reason, Appellant’s challenge is waived.

                                           -5-
J-S03007-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/13/2024

                           -6-