Court Opinion

ID: 9952638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 14:12:50.759237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:00.210361
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania             :
                                         :
                   v.                    :   No. 1409 C.D. 2021
                                         :   Submitted: January 27, 2023
Jeremie Alan Baker,                      :
                         Appellant       :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
            HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
            HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER               FILED: March 20, 2024

      Jeremie Alan Baker (Baker), pro se, appeals from an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Adams County (trial court) denying Baker’s serial pleadings
regarding his sentence computation and credit. Baker argues his minimum and
maximum dates for his sentence were miscalculated and he is not receiving adequate
credit for time served. After review, we affirm.
      On December 9, 2014, a jury found Baker guilty of burglary, robbery, criminal
conspiracy to commit robbery, and theft by unlawful taking. (Sentencing Order,
Original Record (O.R.) Item 47.) On February 17, 2015, President Judge Michael
A. George of Adams County sentenced Baker to an aggregate sentence of 11 to 22
years in a State Correctional Institution. (Id.) On the burglary count, Baker was
sentenced to 5 to 10 years; on the robbery count, 6 to 12 years; and on the criminal
conspiracy to commit robbery count, 5 to 10 years.1 (Id.) The burglary and
conspiracy to commit robbery counts were to run concurrently, while the robbery
count was to run consecutively. (Id.) His sentence commenced as of May 22, 2014,
crediting Baker with 271 days. (Id.) The trial court noted Baker committed these
crimes while he was on state parole for a prior felony offense. (Id.)
      On June 5, 2019, Baker filed a letter with the trial court styled as a “Motion
to Amend [the] Sentencing Order” stating he “just found out” that his minimum
sentence date was not in 2025 and arguing since his 11- to 22-year sentence began
on May 22, 2014, his minimum sentence date should be in 2025. (O.R. Item 168.)
He also argued the Department of Corrections (DOC) was not giving him adequate
credit for time served. (Id.) In a subsequent filing, filed August 3, 2020, Baker
asked that his aggregate sentence be modified to a 6- to 12-year sentence due to his
completion of numerous programs, starting his own program, and obtaining his
certified peer specialist license. (O.R. Item 169.) On March 19, 2021, Baker filed
a “Motion for Sentence Modification,” asking for a “modification of sentence or
time ran concurrent” and asserting he was not being given full credit for his sentence.
(O.R. Item 172.) Thereto, he attached an “Inmate’s Request to Staff Member”
wherein he asked DOC to clarify his minimum and maximum dates, which DOC
replied were August 3, 2027, and August 3, 2038, respectively. (Id.) On March 22,
2021, the trial court denied Baker’s Motion for Sentence Modification because it
lacked jurisdiction to modify his original sentence. (O.R. Item 173.) That same day,
Baker filed a “Petition to Amend Sentence or Modification,” stating his minimum
date should be in the year 2025, not 2027, noting he should be given adequate credit
for time served, and asking if his aggregate sentence could be modified to a total of

      1
          The theft offense merged with the burglary offense as a matter of law. (O.R. Item 47.)

                                                2
6 to 12 years. (O.R. Item 174.) On March 31, 2021, the trial court denied Baker’s
pleading because it lacked jurisdiction. (O.R. Item 175.) On May 24, 2021, Baker
filed a “Motion for Sentence Modification Time Credited” and a “Motion [under]
42 Pa.C.S. § 5505[2] and 5524(7)[3]” (collectively, Motions), asserting that he should
be given credit for time served, that his aggregate sentence should be modified to be
6 to 12 years, and that the trial court has jurisdiction to modify his sentence under
42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7). (O.R. Item 179.) The trial court denied
the Motions in its Order filed May 27, 2021, which is the subject of this appeal.
(O.R. Item 180.) Baker appealed the trial court’s Order to the Superior Court,4 and
the trial court ordered Baker to file a Concise Statement of Errors pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). (O.R. Items
184, 187.) Baker filed a Concise Statement on July 22, 2021, reasserting that he

       2
          Section 5505 of the Judicial Code provides: “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.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
        3
          Section 5524(7) of the Judicial Code provides:

       The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within two years:

       ....

       (7) Any other action or proceeding to recover damages for injury to person or
       property which is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortious conduct
       or any other action or proceeding sounding in trespass, including deceit or fraud,
       except an action or proceeding subject to another limitation specified in this
       subchapter.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7).
       4
         The Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court because it interpreted Baker’s
appeal as a challenge to the calculation of credit for time served, citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 761. (Superior
Court Order, 11/8/2021.)

                                                  3
should have been given credit for time served and his minimum date should be in
2025, not 2027. (O.R. Item 188.)
       In its Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court
recommended Baker’s appeal be denied. The trial court stated Baker’s pleading
“appeared to raise three claims: (1) a [m]otion for [s]entence [m]odification seeking
concurrent sentencing; (2) a [m]otion [u]nder 42 Pa.[]C.S. § 5505 (relating to
modification of orders); and (3) a [m]otion [u]nder 42 Pa.[]C.S. § 5524(7) (relating
to two-year statute of limitations for a civil action).” (Trial Court Opinion (Trial Ct.
Op.) at 1.) The trial court concluded Baker’s arguments under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505
and 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7) are “frivolous” because, first, Section 5505 allows a trial
court to modify a sentencing order within 30 days of entry in the event an appeal has
not been taken, and 30 days had passed. Exceptions to this rule include clerical
errors, and there was no “clear clerical error” in Baker’s sentence imposed on
February 17, 2015. (Id. at 2.) Next, the trial court stated Section 5524(7) pertains
to the statute of limitations in “civil trespass actions[,]” which does not relate to
Baker’s appeal. (Id.) The trial court then explained “[t]he primary thrust of
[Baker]’s challenge relates to a claim that [DOC] has not adequately credited his
sentence[,]” and he requests the trial court enter an order to alter his aggregate
sentence to 6 to 12 years. (Id. at 3.) The trial court reasoned it does not have
jurisdiction to modify a sentence beyond 30 days following the date of sentencing.
Accordingly, the trial court denied the Motions.
       On appeal to this Court,5 Baker contends the trial court’s sentencing order
“issued a minimum date as May 22, 2025[,] and a maximum expiration date of May

       5
          This Court’s “review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been
violated, whether the trial court abused its discretion, or whether the trial court committed an error
of law.” Mojica v. SCI-Mahanoy Sec., 224 A.3d 811, 812 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).

                                                  4
22, 2036[, but] DOC issued new minimum and maximum dates of August 3, 2027[,]
and August 3, 2038.” (Baker’s Brief (Br.) at 7.) Baker states that the sentencing
order controls, and a sentencing court may modify a sentencing order only in limited
circumstances. (Id.) Baker goes on to explain that in McCray v. Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2005), Commonwealth ex rel.
Powell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2011), and Barndt v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2006), the petitioners therein filed writs of mandamus seeking to compel
DOC to recalculate their sentences, as the courts have “ruled that []DOC [is] charged
with implementing sentences imposed by the [sentencing c]ourt . . . .” (Baker’s Br.
at 8.) Baker concluded that DOC “has no authority or discretion to add two and a
half [] years to [his] sentence[,]” and his sentence “should be remanded [] to the [trial
c]ourt for correction[.]” (Id.)6
       A trial court has authority to modify an order within 30 days of its entry if no
appeal from such order has been taken. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. “[O]nce the [30]-day
period expires, the trial court usually loses the power to alter its orders.”
Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548 (Pa. Super. 2019).7 One exception to
the rule enumerated in Section 5505 is the trial court’s power to correct clerical
errors beyond the 30-day period. Id. However, the “exception to the general rule of
Section 5505 cannot expand to swallow the rule[,]” and this power “does not extend
to reconsideration of a court’s exercise of sentencing discretion.” Commonwealth v.
Holmes, 933 A.2d 57, 66-67 (Pa. 2007). The clerical error must be “obvious[,]”

       6
         The Commonwealth elected not to file a brief and wished to rely on the trial court’s Order.
       7
         Pennsylvania Superior Court cases are not binding on this Court; however, when such
cases discuss analogous issues, they offer persuasive precedent. Stahl v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal
Bd. (E. Hempfield Twp.), 242 A.3d 3, 13 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (citing Lerch v. Unemployment
Comp. Bd. of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)).

                                                 5
“clear[,]” and “incompatible with the record[.]” Id. at 66-67. In general, “[t]he text
of the sentencing order is determinative of the court’s sentencing intentions and the
sentence imposed.” Allen v. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
Further,

       pursuant to Section 9756 of the Sentencing Code, [42 Pa.C.S. § 9756,]
       the sentencing court imposes an indeterminate sentence but specifies
       the maximum and minimum terms . . . . [B]ecause an inmate may have
       other sentences which he has to serve, “[DOC] . . . is responsible for
       calculating the minimum and maximum terms of prisoners committed
       to its jurisdiction.” Gillespie v. Dep’t of Corr., 527 A.2d 1061, 1065
       (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), appeal denied, 540 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1988).

Branch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 754 C.D. 2015, filed Jan.
29, 2016), slip op. at 14-15.8 See also Lee v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 251 A.3d
842, 848 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (reiterating that DOC is responsible for calculating
minimum and maximum terms).
       The trial court interpreted Baker’s Motions as seeking sentence modifications
and concluded it did not have jurisdiction to modify Baker’s sentence. Specifically,
Baker sought credit for time served and modification of his sentence to 6 to 12 years.
(O.R. Item 179.) Under Section 5505, the trial court may not alter a sentencing order
beyond 30 days unless there is a clear clerical error. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. The
sentencing order, issued February 17, 2015, provides the effective date of Baker’s
11- to 22-year sentence was May 22, 2014, the day Baker committed the offenses,
awarding 271 days credit. Baker’s sentence for burglary (5 to 10 years) was to run
concurrently to his sentence for conspiracy (5 to 10 years), and his sentence for
robbery (6 to 12 years) was to run consecutively to his sentences for burglary and

       8
         Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and
Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), an
unreported opinion of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for its persuasive value.

                                            6
conspiracy, totaling 11 to 22 years. Thus, Baker was sentenced on February 17,
2015, to a total of 11 to 22 years set to begin on May 22, 2014, crediting Baker with
271 days. Based on the sentencing order, we cannot say that the trial court erred in
denying Baker’s Motions as there appears to be no clear clerical error over which
the trial court could modify Baker’s sentence beyond the 30-day period outlined in
Section 5505 of the Judicial Code. To the extent there was error based on the
calculation of credit for time served, as Baker argues his minimum date should be in
2025, not 2027, DOC is responsible for the calculation of minimum and maximum
terms, not the trial court. Gillespie, 527 A.2d at 1065; Branch, slip op. at 14-15;
Lee, 251 A.3d at 848.
       If Baker is attempting to obtain a writ of mandamus from this Court,9 such a
filing must be initiated by a petition for review addressed to our original jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 761 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761. Barndt, 902 A.2d at
598 (“Where a trial court’s sentencing order is legal on its face . . . a prisoner may
petition this Court in our original jurisdiction seeking a writ of mandamus to compel
DOC to properly compute a prisoner’s prison sentence.”) (citation omitted); Allen,
103 A.3d at 370 (“[M]andamus is the appropriate remedy to correct an error in
DOC’s computation of maximum and minimum dates of confinement where the
sentencing order clearly gives the inmate credit for the time period in question and
DOC’s computation does not comply with that credit.”). Baker appealed the trial
court’s Order denying his Motions for sentence modifications – Baker did not file

       9
          “A proceeding in mandamus is an extraordinary remedy at common law, designed to
compel the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty.” Allen, 103 A.3d at 369 (citation
omitted). The Court will issue a writ of mandamus only if: “(1) the petitioner possesses a clear
legal right to enforce the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty; (2) the defendant
possesses a corresponding duty to perform the act; and[] (3) the petitioner possesses no other
adequate or appropriate remedy.” Id. at 369-70.

                                               7
a petition for review in our original jurisdiction seeking a writ of mandamus to
compel DOC to properly compute his sentence. Although Baker seems to challenge
DOC’s calculation of his minimum and maximum dates in his appeal, the record is
devoid of DOC’s calculation. The record does include Baker’s “Inmate’s Request
to Staff Member” wherein DOC stated Baker’s minimum date is August 3, 2027,
and his maximum date is August 3, 2038, (O.R. Item 172), but there is no
computation data to evidence how DOC calculated these minimum and maximum
dates. Baker attaches a Sentence Status Summary as of January 25, 2018, to his
Brief, but we cannot consider attachments to filings that are not in the record. See
Henderson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 77 A.3d 699, 713 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2013) (“It is well[ ]settled that the Court may not consider information attached to a
brief but not part of the [] record.”). Moreover, as stated above, DOC is responsible
for calculating minimum and maximum terms, not the trial court. See Lee, 251 A.3d
at 848 (explaining “this Court [] routinely entertain[s] petitions for review in []
mandamus seeking orders to compel DOC to [] credit time [] served[,]” and the
petitioner therein needed to name DOC as a party for the action to be considered a
petition for review in mandamus) (emphasis in original) (brackets omitted).
Therefore, if Baker is attempting to file a petition for writ of mandamus, we cannot
consider it at this stage.

                                          8
      In conclusion, because the sentencing order does not show any clear clerical
errors, the trial court did not err in denying Baker’s Motions to modify his sentence
as it did not have jurisdiction to do so. Additionally, because Baker’s challenge as
to DOC’s computation of his sentence was not in the form of a petition for writ of
mandamus addressed to this Court’s original jurisdiction, we may not consider it at
this time. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Order.

                                       __________________________________________
                                       RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                         9
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania         :
                                     :
                 v.                  :   No. 1409 C.D. 2021
                                     :
Jeremie Alan Baker,                  :
                      Appellant      :

                                  ORDER

     NOW, March 20, 2024, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Adams
County, entered May 27, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________________
                                   RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge