Court Opinion

ID: 9940929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 17:14:27.408884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:03.093367
License: Public Domain

J-S28015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANIELLE NICOLE KLINE                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 258 WDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 5, 2023
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR-0000279-2022

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                        FILED: February 15, 2024

       Danielle Nicole Kline brings this appeal from the judgment of sentence

entered following her guilty plea to attempted homicide and robbery. This case

returns to us after remand to the trial court for the filing of a supplemental

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and the issuance of an opinion pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The parties also were directed to file new appellate briefs.

The matter is now ripe for our disposition, and following our review of the

updated record, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for further

proceedings.

       In our initial memorandum remanding this case to the trial court, we

summarized the pertinent procedural history as follows:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28015-23

      On November 2, 2022, Kline entered a negotiated guilty plea to
      attempted homicide and robbery wherein the parties agreed to a
      sentence of 72 to 154 months in prison on the attempted homicide
      charge and a concurrent term of 60 to 120 months on the robbery
      charge. The trial court accepted the entry of the plea and
      scheduled sentencing for January 5, 2023. Prior to sentencing,
      upon an oral motion by the Commonwealth, the trial court
      amended the attempted homicide count in the criminal
      information to attempted murder – murder of the second degree.
      Subsequently, on January 5, 2023, the trial court sentenced Kline
      in accordance with the plea agreement. Relevant herein, the
      sentencing order states that Kline was sentenced for “Criminal
      Attempt/Homicide (F1)” and there is no mention of the amended
      count of attempted second-degree murder. Nevertheless, the
      criminal docket states that Kline pleaded guilty and was sentenced
      for “Criminal Attempt – Murder of the Second Degree.” Likewise,
      the court commitment document stated that Kline was sentenced
      on the offense of “Criminal Attempt – Murder Of The Second
      Degree.”

Commonwealth v. Kline, 258 WDA 2023, 2023 WL 6784389, at *2 (Pa.

Super. filed October 13, 2023) (Non-Precedential Decision). This timely appeal

followed, and the trial court appointed appellate counsel, who then filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and a petition to

withdraw as counsel.

      We initially determined that, although appellate counsel satisfied the

technical requirements for withdrawing from representation, our independent

review of the record led to the conclusion that Kline’s appeal is not wholly

frivolous. Specifically, we observed there is arguably a non-frivolous issue as

to the legality of Kline’s sentence because, “although Kline pleaded guilty to

attempted homicide, the trial court amended the criminal information prior to

sentencing to reflect that the attempted homicide charge was an attempted

                                      -2-
J-S28015-23

second-degree murder charge.” Kline, 258 WDA 2023, 2023 WL 6784389, at

*5. It is undisputed that “[t]here simply is no such crime as attempted second

… degree murder” in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Williams, 730 A.2d

507, 511 (Pa. Super. 1999).

      Upon further review of the record, this panel observed that it was

unclear whether the sentence imposed was for a conviction of attempted

homicide or for an attempted-second degree murder conviction. We then

concluded that “since the record is at least ambiguous as to the nature of the

sentence, there is an arguably meritorious legality of sentence claim capable

of being addressed on appeal.” Kline, 258 WDA 2023, 2023 WL 6784389, at

*6. We therefore remanded the case to the trial court for the filing of a

supplemental Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement by Kline, the issuance of an

opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), and the filing of new appellate briefs

by the parties.

      On remand, Kline’s appellate counsel filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement on October 23, 2023. The trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

decision on October 25, 2023. Both parties have filed briefs with this Court.

      The single issue raised by Kline is whether her aggregate sentence

should be vacated because one of her “convictions is [for] attempted second-

degree murder which is a crime that does not exist and to which Ms. Kline

could not have been sentenced.” Appellant’s Brief, at 8. She argues that,

although she entered a guilty plea to attempted homicide, the information was

                                     -3-
J-S28015-23

amended    prior   to   sentencing   and   she   was   sentenced   for   criminal

attempt/second-degree murder, which is a non-existent crime. As such, Kline

posits that she cannot be charged with or sentenced to attempted second-

degree murder, and her sentence should be vacated and remanded for further

proceedings.

      We begin by observing that, generally, upon entry of a guilty plea, an

appellant waives all defects and defenses except: (1) the lack of jurisdiction;

(2) the validity of the plea; and (3) the legality of the sentence. See

Commonwealth v. Jones, 929 A.2d 205, 212 (Pa. 2007). A challenge to the

legality of sentence is an attack upon the power of a court to impose a given

sentence. See Commonwealth v. Lipinski, 841 A.2d 537, 539 (Pa. Super.

2004). As our Supreme Court has stated, “a trial court is not empowered

under our Commonwealth’s Sentencing Code to sentence an individual for a

non-existent criminal offense.” Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 232 A.3d 609,

616 (Pa. 2020). Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are reviewed de

novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Infante,

63 A.3d 358, 363 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      On remand, the trial court authored a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that

offered the following astute analysis:

      This [c]ourt, after reviewing the relevant case law, agrees with
      the Superior Court that a defendant cannot be charged, convicted
      or sentenced to attempted second-degree murder. Therefore,
      [Kline’s] conviction and sentence should be vacated and
      remanded for further proceedings.

                                      -4-
J-S28015-23

Trial Court Opinion, 10/25/23, at 1.

       Likewise, the Commonwealth has conceded that Kline’s sentence should

be vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing. See Appellee’s Brief at

2-3. To its credit, the Commonwealth states that it “acknowledges that its

Amended Information does not comport with Pennsylvania case law. The

Commonwealth further acknowledges that [Kline’s] sentence is illegal because

she was sentenced on a crime that does not exist in Pennsylvania.” Id. at 2.

       Upon further review of the record now before us,1 we agree with the

parties and the trial court that a sentence has been imposed on Kline for a

nonexistent crime. It is undisputed that on November 2, 2022, Kline entered

a negotiated guilty plea that included, at count 1, attempted homicide with an

agreed upon sentence of 72 to 154 months in prison. However, prior to

sentencing on January 5, 2023, upon an oral motion by the Commonwealth,

the trial court amended the attempted homicide count in the criminal

information to attempted murder – murder of the second degree. See N.T.,

1/5/23 (Sentencing), at 3. Defense counsel stipulated to the amended

information. See id. at 5.

       Although the sentencing order states that Kline was sentenced at count

1 for “Criminal Attempt/Homicide (F1)”, the certified record includes an order

____________________________________________

1The  certified record transmitted to this Court following remand includes a
supplemental record containing, among other things, the official transcripts of
Kline’s guilty plea on November 2, 2022, and her sentencing hearing on
January 5, 2023.

                                           -5-
J-S28015-23

from the trial court memorializing the amendment at count 1 of Kline’s

information from “attempted murder” to “attempted murder of the second

degree.” See Order, 1/5/23, at 1. In addition, the criminal docket indicates

Kline was sentenced for “Criminal Attempt – Murder of the Second Degree,”

and the court commitment document stated Kline was sentenced on the

offense of “Criminal Attempt – Murder Of The Second Degree.”

       We are satisfied that the record supports our observations as outlined

above. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the judgment of

sentence must be vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings.2

       Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings

as herein stated. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 02/15/2024

____________________________________________

2 We acknowledge in her pro se notice of appeal, Kline argued that she “was

misrepresented and mislead” by her plea counsel and improperly induced into
entering her guilty plea. Pro Se Notice of Appeal, 1/19/23, at 1. However,
claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately presented on collateral
review pursuant to a timely filed petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act,
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562,
576 (Pa. 2013) (reaffirming the general rule that “claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are to be deferred to PCRA review; trial courts should
not entertain claims of ineffectiveness upon post-verdict motions; and such
claims should not be reviewed upon direct appeal”).

                                           -6-