Court Opinion

ID: 9909158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 17:09:35.832564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:11.881571
License: Public Domain

J-S27008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 DEAN REEDY                               :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 287 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 20, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal
                Division at No(s): CP-49-CR-0000515-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                 FILED: DECEMBER 12, 2023

      Appellant, Dean Reedy, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 18 to

60 months’ incarceration, imposed after he pled nolo contendere to five counts

of possession of child pornography, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).          On appeal,

Appellant solely argues that the trial court abused its discretion by applying

an incorrect prior record score (PRS) when fashioning his sentence.        After

careful review, we vacate Appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

      The facts underlying Appellant’s convictions are not pertinent to his

present appeal. The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case,

as follows:

      [Appellant] had [pled nolo contendere] on July 15, 2022, to five
      counts of possession of child pornography. All five counts were
      graded as a felony of the third degree[,] each having an offence
      [sic] gravity score of seven. The plea agreement called for two of
      the charges to run consecutively and the remaining three would
      run concurrently. All the counts were to be in the standard range
      of the sentencing guidelines. As part of the plea agreement[,] the
      Commonwealth was not seeking an image enhancement. After
J-S27008-23

      conducting an oral colloquy with [Appellant], the court accepted
      the plea agreement and ordered a presentence investigation
      [(PSI),] as well as a Sex Offender and Registration Notification Act
      evaluation.

      [Appellant] appeared before the court by video on January 20,
      2023, for sentencing. [Appellant’s] counsel indicted he had
      reviewed the [PSI] with [Appellant]. Counsel stated that [he was]
      not disputing the accuracy of the information contained in the
      [PSI,] except for the [PRS that] probation had given [Appellant.
      N.T.] Sentencing Hearing, [1/20/23], [at] 2…[]. Counsel argued
      that [Appellant’s PRS] was one[,] but the PSI had his [PRS] as a
      two.

      Probation officer, Andrew Charnosky, testified there was a
      discussion with [his] supervisor[,] Megan Kriner[,] and it was
      decided to score [Appellant’s] prior conviction for corruption of
      minors [(COM)] as a two. Probation believed that his conviction
      falls under the definition of crimes against children and should
      therefore be counted as a one. That[,] in conjunction with his two
      other misdemeanor convictions[,] would give [Appellant] a [PRS]
      of two. The court proceeded to sentence [Appellant,] on count
      number two[,] to eighteen (18) months to sixty (60) months in a
      state correctional facility. On count number three[,] the court
      sentenced [Appellant] to eighteen (18) months to sixty (60)
      months consecutive to count two. On counts four, five and six[,]
      the court sentenced [Appellant] to eighteen (18) to sixty (60)
      months on each count[,] to be served concurrently to count two.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/21/23, at 1-2 (unnumbered; unnecessary

capitalization omitted).

      Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he timely complied with

the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 21,

2023. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:

      I. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion when it considered
      information that was in the [PSI] report that [Appellant’s PRS] is
      a [two] instead of [a one] because it considered [the COM

                                     -2-
J-S27008-23

      conviction,] a misdemeanor of the first degree[,] … to be a [one]
      point offense for [PRS] purposes[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      As this Court has recognized,

      [i]t is well-settled that a challenge to the calculation of a [PRS]
      goes to the discretionary aspects, not legality, of sentencing. See
      Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 848 A.2d 977, 986 (Pa. Super.
      2004) (holding [the] miscalculation of [a PRS] “constitutes a
      challenge to the discretionary aspects of [a] sentence”). When an
      appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, we
      must consider his brief on this issue as a petition for permission
      to appeal. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.
      Super. 2010).

      Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue,

         [this Court conducts] a four[-]part analysis to determine:
         (1) whether [the 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 [the a]ppellant’s brief has a fatal defect,
         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, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9781(b).

      Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 249 A.3d 575, 583-84 (Pa. Super. 2021).

      Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and he preserved his

issue at the sentencing hearing.       See N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 2

(Appellant’s objecting to the PRS of two and arguing that it should be a one).

Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains the requisite Rule 2119(f) concise

statement. See Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. Finally, this Court has held that a

claim that a trial court miscalculated the appellant’s PRS raises a substantial

question for our review. Commonwealth v. Spenny, 128 A.3d 234, 242

                                      -3-
J-S27008-23

(Pa. Super. 2015). Accordingly, we turn to the merits of Appellant’s issue,

mindful that:

      Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the
      sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal
      absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse
      of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather,
      the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the
      sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its
      judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or
      arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Shreffler, 249 A.3d at 584 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d

711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quotation omitted)).

      Instantly, Appellant argues that his first-degree misdemeanor (M1)

offense of COM should have been assigned a PRS of one, rather than two. He

notes that 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(4) lists the offenses that are to receive a

PRS of one, and M1 COM is not included on that list. See Appellant’s Brief at

10. He is correct. See 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(4). Notably, the very next

provision, section 303.7(a)(5), states:

      (5) Other Misdemeanor Offenses.             All other misdemeanor
      offenses, including a first lifetime conviction for Driving Under the
      Influence of Alcohol or a Controlled Substance or Operating a
      Watercraft Under the Influence of Alcohol or a Controlled
      Substance, are designated by an “m” in the offense listing at §
      303.15, and are scored as follows:

         (i) One point is added if the offender was previously
         convicted of two or three misdemeanors.

         (ii) Two points are added if the offender was previously
         convicted of four to six misdemeanors.

         (iii) Three points are added if the offender was previously
         convicted of seven or more misdemeanors.

                                      -4-
J-S27008-23

204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(5).           The Commonwealth concedes that, because

“Appellant had three prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of his

sentencing[,] … this would usually yield a [PRS] of [one]” under section

303.7(a)(5)(i). Commonwealth’s Brief at 9.

       However, the Commonwealth defends the probation department’s

calculation of Appellant’s PRS as a two, explaining that,

       in determining … Appellant’s [PRS], … Northumberland County
       Adult Probation utilized the Prior Record Score - 7th Edition
       Worksheet.[1] The Worksheet has a section dedicated to M1
       Offenses Involving Children. This list includes a “catch all”
       category provided as “Other M1 Offense Involving Children (1
       point)[.”] … [B]ecause [Appellant’s] convictions include [COM],
       which necessarily involves children, Adult Probation counted this
       as a [one-]point offense, yielding a [PRS] of [two].

Id. The trial court similarly concluded that “[t]he classification by probation

as an offense against children seems correct[,] given that [Appellant] was also

convicted of [i]ndecent [a]ssault of a person less than sixteen.” TCO at 2

(unnumbered).

       We disagree. Initially, the offense of COM always involves a criminal

act against a child. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(i) (defining COM, stating:

“Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), whoever, being of the age of 18

years and upwards, by any act corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any

minor less than 18 years of age, or who aids, abets, entices or encourages

____________________________________________

1 We note that the Commonwealth does not explain what this ‘worksheet’ is,

and it is not contained in the certified record. Moreover, the Commonwealth
does not explain how or why this document would supersede the Sentencing
Code.

                                           -5-
J-S27008-23

any such minor in the commission of any crime, or who knowingly assists or

encourages such minor in violating his or her parole or any order of court,

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the

fact that Appellant’s M1 COM offense involved a child cannot be used to

increase his PRS under some “catch all” provision of a PRS worksheet, where

the crime of M1 COM is explicitly set forth in the “Offense Listing” section of

204 Pa. Code § 303.15. There, M1 COM is listed as having a PRS of “m,”

which means that it constitutes an “other misdemeanor offense” under section

303.7(a)(5). See 204 Pa. Code. § 303.15. As set forth supra, that provision

states that “[o]ne point is added if the offender was previously convicted of

two or three misdemeanors.” 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(5)(i). Thus, because

Appellant had three prior, misdemeanor convictions at the time of his

sentencing in this case, the court should have applied a PRS of one, rather

than two.

      Moreover, we reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that the court’s

error in applying a PRS of two was harmless. See Commonwealth’s Brief at

10-11. As recognized by the trial court, Appellant’s sentences on all counts

“were to be in the standard range of the sentencing guidelines” as part of his

plea agreement. TCO at 1 (unnumbered); see also “Petition for Entry of a

Guilty Plea/Nolo Contendere Plea,” 7/18/22, at 2 (indicating that a term of

Appellant’s plea was that he would receive standard range sentences). As the

Commonwealth observes, with a PRS of two, Appellant’s standard-range,

minimum term is 12 to 18 months, while with a PRS of one, his standard-

                                     -6-
J-S27008-23

range, minimum term is 9 to 16 months. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 10.

Thus, the court’s minimum sentence of 18 months’ incarceration falls within

the aggravated guideline range under the correct PRS of one, and would

thereby violate the terms of Appellant’s plea agreement. See id. (stating that

“[t]he     aggravated/mitigated       range   for    the   [p]ossession    of   [c]hild

[p]ornography charge … is 6 months”).

         Accordingly,   we   vacate    Appellant’s    sentence   and      remand    for

resentencing, at which the court shall utilize a PRS of one – and the sentencing

guidelines applicable thereto – in fashioning Appellant’s sentence.

         Judgment of sentence vacated.         Case remanded for resentencing.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

         Judge Sullivan joins this memorandum.

         Judge Bowes files a concurring statement in which President Judge

Emeritus Bender Judge Sullivan join.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/12/2023

                                         -7-