Court Opinion

ID: 9365613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:07:52.010097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.358827
License: Public Domain

J-S35019-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JOSE RAFAEL MARTINEZ                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 330 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 20, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Criminal
                  Division at No(s): CP-49-CR-0001779-2019

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                         FILED JANUARY 24, 2023

        Jose Rafael Martinez appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

following his guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”)

(second offense) and simple assault.1 He challenges the discretionary aspects

of his sentence and claims the court failed to award credit for time served. We

find the discretionary aspects of sentencing claim meritless. We vacate the

judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court to determine whether

Martinez is entitled to credit for time served and, if so, ascertain the amount

of, and award, credit.

        Martinez was arrested in October 2019 for driving while under the

influence of alcohol and spitting on a police officer. On October 27, 2019, the

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1), respectively.
J-S35019-22

court set a monetary bond amount of $75,000 and, on November 26, 2019,

changed the bond to an unsecured bond. Criminal Docket, No. MJ-08303-CR-

0000580-2019, filed Dec. 6, 2019, at 2; Commitment, dated Oct. 27, 2019,

No. MJ-08303-CR-0000580-2019; Bail Bond, dated Nov. 26, 2019, No. MJ-

08303-CR-0000580-2019; see also Criminal Docket, No. MJ-08303-CR-

0000580-2019, at 1 (reflecting an arrest date of Oct. 27, 2019, and

confinement period from Oct. 27, 2019 to Nov. 26, 2019).

      In August 2021, Martinez pleaded guilty to DUI and simple assault. In

January 2022, the trial court sentenced him to one to two years’ incarceration.

      The trial court noted that the standard guideline range for DUI was three

to six months and the standard range for simple assault was 12 to 18 months.

N.T., Jan. 20, 2022, at 4. Martinez’s counsel pointed out that all the prior

offenses, except for a 2018 DUI conviction, were more than 15 years old, and

that Martinez had been working as a custodian for the past two years. Counsel

further informed the court that Martinez suffered from cardiovascular disease,

had undergone a coronary bypass in 2015, and currently had a defibrillator.

He presented a letter from Martinez’s medical provider stating that Martinez

is “currently capable of doing activities of daily living and light exertion,” but

“not likely to tolerate heavy exertion and a high stress environment.” Id. at

5. The medical provider also stated that Martinez required frequent follow-up

and defibrillator checks. Id. at 6. Counsel asked that the court impose a

mitigated sentence and “possibly allow him to serve his sentence on house

arrest,” so he could follow up with his medical treatment. Id. at 5-6.

                                      -2-
J-S35019-22

      Before imposing sentence, the court stated the sentence was “[b]ased

upon the plea agreement, the sentencing guideline information, and the

statements made here today primarily by counsel for [Martinez], noting that

[Martinez] elected not to say anything.” Id. at 6-7. The court sentenced

Martinez to a period of three to six months for DUI and one to two years for

simple assault, to be served concurrently. Neither the court nor the parties

mentioned credit for time served, and the sentencing order did not award

credit.

      In February 2022, Martinez filed a notice of appeal and a motion for

qualified bail, wherein he requested that the Court release him on bail while

his case was pending on appeal. He did not file a post-sentence motion. The

court denied the motion for qualified bail.

      Martinez raises the following issues:

          The question(s) involved in this APPEAL relate to whether
          reversible error was committed in entering the
          aforementioned ORDER(s) and accompanying OPINION(s)
          in deciding whether circumstances of this case meet the
          prerequisite(s) for granting a modification of sentence;
          specifically whether:

          a. The Northumberland County PA Court of Common Pleas
          failed to adequately weigh the standards set forth in 42
          Pa.C.S.A § 9721(b) when imposing an excessive aggregate
          sentence of one (1) to two (2) year(s) state imprisonment
          for a guilty plea to the aforesaid charge(s) in light of
          mitigating circumstances regarding [Martinez’s] medical
          condition.

          b. The Northumberland County PA Court of Common Pleas
          improperly failed to articulate reason(s) for not considering
          the least restrictive sentencing alternative(s) available (i.e.,
          “house arrest”) in imposing an excessive aggregate

                                       -3-
J-S35019-22

         sentence of one (1) to two (2) year(s) state imprisonment
         for a guilty plea to each of one (1) count of Simple Assault
         under 18 Pa.C.S.A § 2701(a)(1) and (1) count of Driving
         Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance
         under 75 Pa.C.S.A § 3802(a)(1), with [Martinez] receiving
         no credit for time served.

Martinez’s Br. at 7 (trial court ruling omitted).

      Martinez argues the trial court failed to adequately weigh the sentencing

factors and imposed an excessive aggregate sentence. Martinez points out the

letter from his treating physician stated that he had cardiovascular disease,

which required frequent follow-up and defibrillator checks, and he likely would

not be able to tolerate heavy exertion or a high stress environment. He further

argues the trial court erred in failing to articulate reasons for not considering

the least restrictive sentencing alternative, that is, house arrest.

      There is no absolute right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a

sentence. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super.

2013) (en banc). Rather, before addressing a challenge to discretionary

aspects of sentence, must determine whether the appellant: (1) filed a timely

notice of appeal; (2) properly preserved the sentencing issue at sentencing or

in a motion to reconsider or modify sentence; (3) included in the appellate

brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for appeal; and (4) has

asserted a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under the

Sentencing Code. See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808

(Pa.Super. 2013); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). “[I]f the appeal satisfies each of

these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the substantive merits

of the case.” Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 (citation omitted).

                                      -4-
J-S35019-22

      Martinez failed to preserve his discretionary aspects of sentencing issue

at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion and therefore waived the claim on

appeal. Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1042-43 (finding issue waived when not raised

at sentencing or in post-sentence motion). Because he waived the claim, we

do not reach its merits.

      Martinez states at numerous places in his brief that he did not receive

credit for time served. Such a claim is a challenge to the legality of his

sentence and non-waivable. Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166

(Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d

95, 99 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

      Under Pennsylvania law, a court is obliged to credit a defendant in the

following situation:

         Credit against the maximum term and any minimum term
         shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in custody
         as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison sentence
         is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a
         charge is based. Credit shall include credit for time spent in
         custody prior to trial, during trial, pending sentence, and
         pending the resolution of an appeal.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(1).

      It appears that that Martinez originally was held on a $75,000.00

monetary bond and later was released on an unsecured bond. Accordingly,

Martinez may be eligible for credit for time served. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9760(1). Therefore, we vacate and remand for the court to ascertain whether

Martinez is eligible for credit for time served and, if so, to determine the

                                     -5-
J-S35019-22

amount of time Martinez is due for crediting purposes. The court shall issue a

new sentencing order reflecting its determinations.2

       Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part. Case

remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/24/2023

____________________________________________

2The record includes a “state credit memo” dated March 29, 2022, from Camp
Hill to Northumberland County Prison stating: “Credit: 10/27/2019 to
11/26/2019.” The docket states that Martinez’s sentence includes 31 days’
credit for time served. Criminal Docket, No. CP-49-CR-0001779-2019, at 4
(printed 6/15/22). However, the sentencing order, which is controlling,
contains no award of credit.

                                           -6-