Court Opinion

ID: 9890552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 15:10:22.513186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:27.225485
License: Public Domain

J-S29038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  MICHAEL TERELL AUTREY                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 397 MDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 1, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-35-CR-0001919-2021

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                           FILED: OCTOBER 13, 2023

       Appellant, Michael Terell Autrey, appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited

person.1    With this appeal, Appellant’s counsel, Donna M. De Vita, Esquire

(“Counsel”), has filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and an Anders brief.2

Upon review, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence as we conclude that

there are no non-frivolous issues present in this appeal, but we deny Counsel’s

petition to withdraw and remand this case to allow the trial court to correct a

clear clerical error in the sentencing order.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
J-S29038-23

       Appellant was arrested on September 24, 2021, following a traffic stop

in which officers discovered an unloaded Taurus 9-millimeter handgun in his

vehicle. He was charged with the above-stated firearms offense, as well as

possession of a firearm in a vehicle or concealed without a license, possession

of a small amount of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. 3 On

November 29, 2022, Appellant entered a guilty plea to possession of a firearm

by a prohibited person; in exchange for the plea, the Commonwealth nolle

prossed the remaining charges.             On February 1, 2023, the trial court

sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years.

       Appellant did not file a timely post-sentence motion. However, on March

2, 2023, he filed a timely pro se notice of appeal in which he indicated that he

sought to appeal his “excessive sentence.” Notice of Appeal, dated 2/25/23.

Appellant also requested that the attorney who represented him through his

plea and sentencing be removed, and the trial court appointed Counsel to

represent him on March 17, 2023. Id.; Order, 3/17/23.4

       In her Anders brief, Counsel identifies the following issues:

       A. Whether the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

       B. Whether the trial court failed to state on the record the reasons
       for the sentence imposed as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(D)(2).

____________________________________________

318 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31), and 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(32), respectively.
4 Appellant, through Counsel, filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement on

April 10, 2023, raising the issues discussed in Counsel’s Anders brief. The
trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on April 21, 2023.

                                           -2-
J-S29038-23

Anders Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).

      Before this Court can consider the merits of this appeal, we must first

determine whether Counsel has satisfied all of the requirements that court-

appointed counsel must meet before leave to withdraw may be granted.

Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 270 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en

banc); Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa. Super. 2007)

(en banc).

      To withdraw from representing a defendant on direct appeal on the basis

that the appeal is frivolous, counsel must: (1) petition the court for leave to

withdraw stating that she has made a conscientious examination of the record

and has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a sufficient

Anders brief; and (3) provide a copy of the Anders brief to the defendant

and advise the defendant of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se

and raise any additional points that he deems worthy of this Court’s attention.

Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179, 183 (Pa. Super.

2016); Goodwin, 928 A.2d at 290.

      An Anders brief must:

      (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
      citations to the record;

      (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably
      supports the appeal;

      (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

      (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
      frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record,

                                     -3-
J-S29038-23

       controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the
       conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009) (line breaks

added). If counsel has satisfied the above requirements, it is then this Court’s

duty to conduct its own review of the trial court proceedings and render an

independent judgment as to whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Dempster, 187 A.3d at 271; Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d at 184.

       In the petition to withdraw, Counsel indicated that she had engaged in

a thorough review of the record and determined that there are no non-

frivolous grounds for the appeal. Counsel sent a letter to Appellant advising

him of his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se and raise any

additional points he deems worthy of this Court’s attention,5 and Counsel

included with the letter a copy of the petition to withdraw and Anders brief.

Counsel’s Anders brief includes a summary of the relevant procedural and

factual background to this case and discusses the reasons upon which Counsel

bases her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous, with citation to applicable

law. Therefore, we conclude that Counsel has adequately complied with the

procedural requirements for withdrawal.

       We therefore proceed to conduct an independent review to ascertain

whether the appeal is indeed wholly frivolous. We first consider the issues

raised by Counsel in the Anders brief and determine whether they are in fact

____________________________________________

5 As of the date of this decision, Appellant has not filed a pro se brief with this

Court or retained private counsel.

                                           -4-
J-S29038-23

frivolous.   Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super.

2018) (en banc); Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272. If we find those issues to be

frivolous, we then proceed to conduct an examination of the record to discern

if there are any other issues of arguable merit overlooked by Counsel.

Yorgey, 188 A.3d at 1197; Dempster, 187 A.3d at 271-72.

      In her Anders brief, Counsel addresses the discretionary aspects of

Appellant’s sentence, framed as two separate issues: first, whether

Appellant’s claim is excessive, and second, whether the trial court set forth

adequate reasons for its decision on the record. Counsel concludes that any

challenge to the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence is waived based

upon the fact that Appellant did not object at sentencing or file a post-

sentence motion. We agree.

      “To properly preserve an issue challenging the discretionary aspects of

sentencing, a defendant must object and request a remedy at sentencing[] or

raise the challenge in a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Clary,

226 A.3d 571, 579 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not

raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on

appeal.”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1) (“[A] written post-sentence motion shall be

filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence.”); Commonwealth

v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022) (to invoke appellate

jurisdiction for review of discretionary sentencing issue, appellant must

preserve issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify the

sentence); Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307, 328 (Pa. Super.

                                     -5-
J-S29038-23

2019) (en banc) (same). Failure to preserve a discretionary sentencing issue

before the trial court results in waiver. Commonwealth v. Sheets, ___ A.3d

___, 2023 PA Super 154, at *13 (Pa. Super. filed August 10, 2023);

Commonwealth v. Smith, 206 A.3d 551, 567 (Pa. Super. 2019);

Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272-73.             An appellant cannot cure this waiver by

including the challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing in his

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Padilla-Vargas, 204 A.3d

971, 976 (Pa. Super. 2019).

       Here, Appellant did not object to his sentence at the February 1, 2023

sentencing hearing or file a post-sentence motion.6 As such, any discretionary
____________________________________________

6 While Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion, we note that Appellant’s

then-counsel did indicate that he had an “objection” to the computation of his
prior record score and he intended to file a motion for reconsideration to
address the issue. N.T., 2/1/23, at 2. However, prior counsel did not
articulate the basis of his objection at that time. Id. (prior counsel stating
only that “[w]e computed [the prior record score] differently”). A challenge
to the calculation of the prior record score implicates the discretionary aspects
of sentencing and thus must be preserved at sentencing or in a post-sentence
motion. Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 421 (Pa. Super.
2016) (a claim that sentencing guidelines were miscalculated is a challenge to
the discretionary aspects of a sentence); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722
A.2d 203, 211 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (same); see also Sheets, 2023
PA Super 154, at *13 (failure to preserve a discretionary sentencing issue
results in waiver). Because prior counsel did not articulate the rationale for
his objection to the calculation of the prior record score at sentencing and no
post-sentence motion was filed, this issue is waived for the purpose of appeal.
Clary, 226 A.3d at 579 (challenge to sentence must be stated with specificity
and particularity and must provide trial court opportunity to correct its
sentence).
Nevertheless, we note that upon our review of the presentence investigation
report (“PSI”) and sentencing guidelines recommendation in this matter, such
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-S29038-23

sentencing issue that Appellant would seek to raise on appeal was waived.

Sheets, 2023 PA Super 154, at *13; Smith, 206 A.3d at 567; see also

Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272-73 (concluding that challenge to discretionary

aspects of sentence was waived due to absence of objection at sentencing and

____________________________________________

a challenge to the prior record score calculation may have had merit.
According to the sentencing guidelines form used by the trial court, Appellant
had a prior record score of Repeat Violent Offender Category, or REVOC.
Sentencing Guideline Form, 2/16/23.          A REVOC prior record score is
appropriate in cases where an offender has an adjudication of “two or more
previous convictions or adjudications for four[-]point offenses” and his current
conviction carries an offense gravity score of 9 or more. 204 Pa. Code §
303.4(a)(1) (7th Edition, Amendment 6). The second requirement was
satisfied as Appellant’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited
person had an offense gravity score of 9. Sentencing Guideline Form,
2/16/23; 204 Pa. Code § 303.15 (7th Edition, Amendment 6) (comprehensive
offense listing). However, the first requirement does not appear to be satisfied
as Appellant’s PSI only lists one four-point offense, a 2012 robbery conviction
under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) at CP-51-CR-0012094-2008. PSI, 9/13/23,
at 3; 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(1) (7th Edition, Amendment 6) (listing four-
point offenses, including “completed crimes of violence, as defined in 42
Pa.C.S. § 9714(g), excluding inchoates”); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(g) (defining
crime of violence to include robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii)). While
Appellant was also convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery at CP-51-CR-
0012094-2008, inchoate crimes, such as conspiracy, are not counted as four-
point offenses. 204 Pa. Code § 303.7(a)(1), (2) (7th Edition, Amendment 6)
(inchoate crimes of violence are three-point offenses); Commonwealth v.
King, 234 A.3d 549, 568-69 (Pa. 2020) (stating that conspiracy is an inchoate
crime). Therefore, it appears that Appellant should have been placed in the
Repeat Felony 1 and Felony 2 Offender Category, or RFEL, because he has
previous first-degree felony convictions with a total of more than 6 points.
204 Pa. Code § 303.4(a)(2) (7th Edition, Amendment 6). However, as stated
above, Appellant did not preserve this issue and it cannot be addressed by
this Court on his direct appeal regardless of any potential merit. Sheets,
2023 PA Super 154, at *13; Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272-73; Sunealitis, 153
A.3d at 421; Archer, 722 A.2d at 210-11.

                                           -7-
J-S29038-23

post-sentence motion and concluding that sentencing claim was thus wholly

frivolous for purpose of Anders).

      Based on the foregoing, we agree with Counsel that Appellant’s

challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence is wholly frivolous. As

part of our independent review of the record to discern if there are any other

issues of arguable merit overlooked by Counsel, Yorgey, 188 A.3d at 1197;

Dempster, 187 A.3d at 271-72, we note that, by pleading guilty, Appellant

limited his cognizable appellate issues to the trial court’s jurisdiction, the

validity of his plea, and the legality of his sentence—in addition to the

discretionary sentencing issues previously addressed.     Commonwealth v.

Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1275 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. DiClaudio,

210 A.3d 1070, 1074 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019). We discern no merit to any claim

that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the record shows that Appellant’s

crime occurred in Lackawanna County, he had adequate notice of the charges

against him, and the judge who accepted Appellant’s plea and sentenced him

was a sitting judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.

N.T., 11/29/22, at 5 (Appellant admitting that his crime occurred in

Lackawanna County); Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 210 (Pa.

2007) (noting that “courts of common pleas have statewide jurisdiction in all

cases arising under the Crimes Code”); Commonwealth v. Goldblum, 447

A.2d 234, 244 (Pa. 1982) (“Subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court exists

by virtue of the presentation of prima facie evidence that a criminal act

occurred within the jurisdiction of the court.”); Commonwealth v. McNeil,

                                     -8-
J-S29038-23

665 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“Personal jurisdiction in a criminal

matter is secured through the defendant’s presence within the territorial

jurisdiction of the court.”).

      Further, Appellant waived any hypothetical challenge to the validity of

his plea by not objecting at the plea hearing or filing a timely motion to

withdraw his plea. Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa.

Super. 2013). In any event, the written and oral plea colloquy addressed the

necessary areas of inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing, voluntary,

and intelligent. N.T., 11/29/22, at 3-5 (discussion of right to jury trial, nature

of charges, maximum penalties, and factual basis for plea); Guilty Plea

Colloquy Form, 11/29/22, at 2-4 (discussion of presumption of innocence,

elements of offense, right to jury trial, and maximum penalties); Pa.R.Crim.P.

590, Comment (discussing topics that must be discussed with defendant to

ensure validity of plea); Commonwealth v. Kpou, 153 A.3d 1020, 1023 (Pa.

Super. 2016) (same).

      Turning to the legality of Appellant’s sentence, we note that Appellant

was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person graded as a

felony of the second degree, he pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony

version of the offense, and the sentencing guidelines form used at sentencing

indicated   that   the   offense   was   graded   as   a   second-degree   felony.

Information, 10/21/21 (Count 1 graded as a second-degree felony); N.T.,

11/29/22, at 3-4 (indicating that Appellant was pleading guilty to “possession

of a firearm prohibited, a felony two” and informing Appellant that maximum

                                         -9-
J-S29038-23

term of imprisonment he faced was 10 years); Guilty Plea Colloquy Form,

11/29/22, at 3 (informing Appellant that he could be sentenced to maximum

term of 10 years); Sentencing Guideline Form, 2/16/23 (offense graded “F-

2”); 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(2) (for felony of the second degree, court may impose

a term of not more than 10 years). However, the sentencing order states that

Appellant was sentenced on “Count 1 – 18 § 6105 §§ A1 – Possession Of

Firearm Prohibited (F1),” Sentencing Order, 2/1/23 (emphasis added), and

the trial court docket reflects that Appellant was convicted of a first-degree

felony. Criminal Docket, CP-35-CR-0001919-2021.

      A challenge to the proper grading of an offense implicates the legality

of the sentence, Commonwealth v. Pope, 216 A.3d 299, 303 (Pa. Super.

2019); Commonwealth v. Weimer, 167 A.3d 78, 83 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2017),

which is a cognizable issue in this appeal.     Eisenberg, 98 A.3d at 1275;

DiClaudio, 210 A.3d at 1074 n.5. Generally, where there is a discrepancy

between the written sentencing order and the statements at the sentencing

hearing, it is the text of the sentencing order that controls what the

defendant’s sentence is. Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548

(Pa. Super. 2019); Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 451-52 (Pa.

Super. 2018).

      However, a trial court retains the authority correct “a clear clerical error

(or a patent and obvious mistake)” that are obvious on the face of the record

beyond the court’s traditional authority to modify its orders within 30 days of

issuance. Commonwealth v. Rosario, 248 A.3d 599, 606 (Pa. Super. 2021)

                                     - 10 -
J-S29038-23

(citation omitted); see also Kremer, 206 A.3d at 548 (same); 42 Pa.C.S. §

5505 (“Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice

to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry,

notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from

such order has been taken or allowed.”).           In the case of an error in a

sentencing order, an error may be deemed correctible as a patent and obvious

mistake where “the trial court’s intentions to impose a certain sentence”

different than that in the sentencing order is “obvious on the face of the

sentencing transcript” and “clearly and unambiguously declared during the

sentencing hearing.” Rosario, 248 A.3d at 606 (quoting Kremer, 206 A.3d

at 548); see also Commonwealth v. Bartic, ___ A.3d ___, 2023 PA Super

164, at *4 n.2 (Pa. Super. filed September 12, 2023).

       Here, where the charging documents, sentencing guidelines, and the

trial court’s statements at the sentencing hearing all indicated that Appellant

was convicted of a second-degree felony, and further Appellant did not admit

to facts that would support a first-degree felony grading7 and the sentence

____________________________________________

7 The crime of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person may be graded

as a first-degree felony if the defendant has a prior conviction of the same
offense or if he “was in physical possession or control of a firearm, whether
visible, concealed about the [defendant] or within [his] reach.” 18 Pa.C.S. §
6105(a.1)(1.1)(i). While Appellant does have a prior conviction of the same
offense, PSI, 9/13/23, at 3 (noting prior conviction of possession of a firearm
by a prohibited person at CP-51-CR-0006634-2018), his conviction was not
cited in the criminal information or during his sentencing hearing and he did
not admit to being in physical possession of the firearm during his guilty plea
colloquy. N.T., 11/29/22, at 5.

                                          - 11 -
J-S29038-23

was within the statutory maximum for a second-degree felony, we conclude

that the notation on the sentencing order that Appellant was sentenced to an

“F1” offense constituted a clear clerical error.   Sentencing Order, 2/1/23;

Bartic, 2023 PA Super 164, at *3-4 n.2 (determining that trial court

committed clear clerical error where it stated at sentencing that two six-month

probationary sentences were to run consecutively but sentencing order stated

that sentences were to run concurrently); Rosario, 248 A.3d at 606-07

(finding that the trial court was authorized to correct clear clerical error in

sentencing order to reflect that defendant was sentenced on one, not three,

conspiracy charges where sentencing transcript clearly supported correction

and correction did not affect aggregate sentence). A remand for the trial court

to correct this clear clerical error is thus necessary. Bartic, 2023 PA Super

164, at *4 & n.2 (affirming judgments of sentence but remanding for trial

court to correct clear clerical error in one of the sentencing orders under

appeal).

      Accordingly, although we conclude that the issues raised in Counsel’s

Anders brief are frivolous and that there are no other non-frivolous issues

Appellant could have raised in this appeal, we remand to the trial court to

correct the clear clerical error present in its sentencing order.   As further

proceedings are necessary in this matter, we deny Counsel’s petition to

withdraw.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.     Petition to withdraw denied.     Case

remanded for correction of the sentencing order. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                    - 12 -
J-S29038-23

     Judge Murray joins the memorandum.

     Judge King concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/13/2023

                                   - 13 -