Court Opinion

ID: 9867444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 16:09:51.533169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:24.989305
License: Public Domain

J-S19021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JAMAAL TYWAN MURPHY                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 619 MDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-40-CR-0000101-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2023

       Jamaal Tywan Murphy appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

following his convictions for firearms not to be carried without a license and

knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance (“K&I”).1 He

challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence and alleges that the court

erroneously rejected his motion for extraordinary relief claiming a Brady2

violation. We affirm.

       Officers detained Murphy following an incident at a travel plaza in

Luzerne County. A jury found Murphy guilty of the above-referenced offenses.

Before sentencing, Murphy filed a written Motion for Extraordinary Relief. He

contended that the Commonwealth had committed a Brady violation by failing

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1) and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), respectively.

2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
J-S19021-23

to pass “several material discovery items” including medical documentation,

the written statements of two witnesses, and certain 911 documentation. See

Defendant’s Motion for Extraordinary Relief, filed 8/24/21 at ¶¶ 7, 8-15, 16-

22, 23-25. The court denied the motion and proceeded with sentencing the

same day. It imposed 60 to 120 months’ incarceration for the firearms offense

and a consecutive sentence of 12 to 24 months’ incarceration for K&I. Murphy

filed a post-sentence motion alleging that the court imposed an illegal

sentence for his firearms offense. He asked the court to resentence him at the

lower range for the K&I conviction. The court granted the motion and

resentenced him to 42 to 84 months’ incarceration for the firearms offense.

See N.T., Modification of Sentence, 3/28/22, at 4. This timely appeal followed.

      Murphy raises the following issues:

         I.    Whether the court committed an error of law or
               abused its discretion with regard to count number
               two, Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance
               Not Registered, in failing to sentence [Murphy] in the
               lower standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines[.]

         II.   Whether the trial court abused its discretion or
               committed an error of law in denying [Murphy’s]
               Motion for Extraordinary Relief.

Murphy’s Br. at 1.

      In his first issue, Murphy maintains that the trial court erred by

sentencing him “without appropriate consideration of the Sentencing Code[.]”

See id. at 3. This issue goes to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. To

argue such an issue on appeal, the appellant must have preserved the issue

at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Carrillo-

                                     -2-
J-S19021-23

Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 2013). Failure to do so constitutes waiver.

See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa.Super. 2013). Murphy

did not do so. The claim is therefore waived.

       Next, Murphy maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion

for extraordinary relief. He contends the Commonwealth committed Brady

violations. Murphy’s Br. at 10-12.

       Rule 704(B) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure governs

motions for extraordinary relief. It reads as follows:

          (B) Oral Motion for Extraordinary Relief.

          (1) Under extraordinary circumstances, when the interests
          of justice require, the trial judge may, before sentencing,
          hear an oral motion in arrest of judgment, for a judgment
          of acquittal, or for a new trial.

          (2) The judge shall decide a motion for extraordinary relief
          before imposing sentence, and shall not delay the
          sentencing proceeding in order to decide it.

          (3) A motion for extraordinary relief shall have no effect on
          the preservation or waiver of issues for post-sentence
          consideration or appeal.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(B) (emphasis added).

       “[T]he plain terms of this Rule do not permit the filing of a written

motion for extraordinary relief prior to sentencing.” Commonwealth v.

Fisher, 764 A.2d 82, 85 (Pa.Super. 2000) (emphasis added).3 Rule 704(B)

“is intended to allow the trial judge the opportunity to address only those

____________________________________________

3 Fisher cites the prior version to Rule 704, then numbered as Pa.R.Crim.P.

1405. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 704, note.

                                           -3-
J-S19021-23

errors so manifest that immediate relief is essential.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(B),

comment. “This Rule was not intended to provide a substitute vehicle for a

convicted defendant to raise matters which could otherwise be raised via post

sentence motion.” Fisher, 764 A.2d at 85.

      Here, Murphy failed to follow the procedures of Rule 704(B) when he

filed a written motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(B)(1); Fisher, 764 A.2d at 85.

Moreover, Murphy’s claims within the motion were not “so manifest that

immediate relief” was essential. Rather, Murphy could have gotten full relief if

he raised his Brady allegations in a post-sentence motion. We cannot say the

trial court improperly denied the written motion for extraordinary relief. See

Commonwealth v. Grohowski, 980 A.2d 113, 116 (Pa.Super. 2009)

(reversing order granting motion for extraordinary relief where appellant filed

a written motion and could have raised issue in a post-sentence motion);

Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624, 627 (Pa.Super. 2006).

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/26/2023

                                     -4-