Court Opinion

ID: 9957611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 17:15:35.433977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:28.339805
License: Public Domain

J-S10012-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SHAWN MAURICE WALLACE                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 913 WDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 4, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-27-CR-0000081-2022

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED: APRIL 4, 2024

       Appellant, Shawn Maurice Wallace, appeals pro se from the August 4,

2023 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Forest

County that imposed a sentence of 27 months’ to 6 years’ incarceration after

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated harassment by prisoner.1

We affirm Appellant’s conviction but are constrained to vacate the judgment

of sentence and remand for resentencing.

       The record demonstrates that, on November 16, 2022, Appellant was

charged with aggravated assault by prisoner (Count 1), harassment – course

of conduct with no legitimate purpose (Count 2), assault by prisoner – bodily

fluid (Count 3), and recklessly endangering another person (Count 4).2
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703.1.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703.1, 2709(a)(3), 2703(a)(2), and 2705, respectively.
J-S10012-24

Amended Information, 11/16/22. Appellant’s criminal charges stemmed from

an incident that occurred on April 19, 2022, involving a correctional officer

who worked at the state correctional institution where Appellant was housed

for an unrelated conviction. Appellant was arraigned on November 21, 2022,

at which time he presented as a sovereign citizen and elected to proceed pro

se upon waiver of the assistance of counsel. N.T., 11/21/22, at 6, 14. The

trial court entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of Appellant since Appellant

refused to enter his own plea. Id. at 14.

       On April 6, 2023, the trial court appointed, sua sponte, standby counsel

to assist Appellant. Trial Court Order, 4/6/23. On May 5, 2023, Appellant

filed pro se a petition to dismiss his criminal charges, which the trial court

subsequently denied on May 8, 2023. Trial Court Order, 5/8/23.

       On May 22, 2023, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated

harassment by prisoner with the agreement that the Commonwealth would

seek nolle prosequi of the remaining charges. On August 4, 2023, the trial

court sentenced Appellant to 27 months’ to 6 years’ incarceration and ordered

Appellant to, inter alia, pay a fine in the amount of $500.00. On August 9,

2023, the trial court ordered that Appellant’s remaining criminal charges be

nolle prosed. On August 10, 2023, Appellant filed pro se his notice of appeal.3
____________________________________________

3 In an August 25, 2023 per curiam order, this Court directed the trial court

to conduct a hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81
(Pa. 1998) to determine if Appellant waived the assistance of counsel on
appeal. On October 24, 2023, the trial court found that, upon conducting a

                                           -2-
J-S10012-24

Appellant filed pro se a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) on August 31,

2023, and filed a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement on September 8,

2023. The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 9, 2023.

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

       [1.]   Whether [Appellant’s] plea colloq[u]y was deficient [and
              violated his due process rights]?

       [2.]   Whether the [trial] court erred in failing to inquire into
              [Appellant’s] ability to pay [a] fine?

       [3.]   Whether [Appellant’s] mandatory minimum [sentence] is
              illegal in any respect?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       Appellant’s first issue challenges the validity of his guilty plea on the

ground that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to adhere

to the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590(B)(2).4

Id. at 7-8.

       Preliminarily, we must review whether Appellant preserved his issue by

first raising the issue before the trial court.

       Pennsylvania law makes clear that by entering a plea of guilty, a
       defendant waives his right to challenge on direct appeal all
____________________________________________

Grazier hearing, Appellant “freely, voluntarily, and intelligently waive[d] his
right to [appellate] counsel.” Trial Court Order, 10/24/23.

4 Rule 590(B)(2) requires a trial court to “conduct a separate inquiry of the

defendant on the record to determine whether the defendant understands and
voluntarily accepts the terms of the plea agreement on which the guilty plea
or plea of nolo contendere is based.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(B)(2).

                                           -3-
J-S10012-24

      non[-]jurisdictional defects except the legality of the sentence and
      the validity of the plea. Commonwealth v. Pantalion, 957 A.2d
      1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 2008). In order to preserve an issue
      related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either “object at the
      sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing
      hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v.
      D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002)[; see
      also] Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1), (B)(1)(a)(i); [] Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)
      ([stating,] “Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and
      cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).

Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 468-469 (Pa. Super.

2017) (original brackets omitted).

      A review of the record reveals that Appellant did not challenge the

validity of his guilty plea at the sentencing hearing or in a post-sentence

motion. See N.T., 8/4/23, at 8-16; see also Trial Court Docket. Because

Appellant did not raise a challenge to the validity of his guilty plea with the

trial court and he is not permitted to do so for the first time on appeal, we find

Appellant waived his first issue. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d at 468-469;

see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

      Appellant’s second and third issues raise a challenge to the legality of

his sentence. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in

imposing a $500.00 fine without first inquiring about Appellant’s ability to pay

the non-mandatory fine. Appellant’s Brief at 9. Appellant further contends

the trial court imposed an illegal sentence pursuant to Alleyne v. United

States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) when it imposed a “mandatory minimum

sentence” absent a jury’s finding of facts that support the mandatory

minimum sentence. Id. at 10-11.

                                      -4-
J-S10012-24

      ”[U]pon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant waives all claims and

defenses other than those sounding in the jurisdiction of the court, the validity

of the plea, and what has been termed the ‘legality’ of the sentence

imposed[.]” Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, 98 A.3d 1268, 1275 (Pa. 2014);

see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(a) (stating, “[t]he defendant or the

Commonwealth may appeal as of right the legality of the sentence”). “[A]

claim that there was no record of the defendant's ability to pay before the

[trial] court constitutes a non[-]waivable challenge to the legality of the

sentence.” Commonwealth v. Ford, 217 A.3d 824, 827 (Pa. 2019) (citation

and original quotation marks omitted).      A mandatory minimum sentencing

claim related to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne,

supra,   also   presents   a   non-waivable    legality    of   sentencing   claim.

Commonwealth v. Ciccone, 152 A.3d 1004, 1007 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en

banc), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 564 (Pa. 2017).

      “Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law[.]”

Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766, 768-769 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citation and original quotation marks omitted).          “When the legality of a

sentence is at issue, our standard of review over such questions is de novo

and our scope of review is plenary.” Id. (citation and original quotation marks

omitted).

      Our Supreme Court has held that “a sentence is illegal when the record

is silent as to the defendant’s ability to pay the [non-mandatory] fines

imposed.” Ford, 217 A.3d at 828, 831; see also Commonwealth v. Lopez,

                                      -5-
J-S10012-24

280 A.3d 887, 909 (Pa. 2022). The Ford Court explained that Section 9726(c)

of the Sentencing Code “requires record evidence of a defendant’s ability to

pay a non-mandatory fine even in a negotiated guilty plea context.”5 Ford,

217 A.3d at 831.          Thus, a trial court is “without authority to impose

non-mandatory fines absent record evidence that the defendant is or will be

able to pay them.” Id. at 829.

       In the case sub judice, Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of

aggravated harassment by prisoner, a third-degree felony.          As part of his

sentence, Appellant was required to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00.

Section 1101(3) of the Sentencing Code states that a defendant “may be

sentenced to pay a fine not to exceed [$15,000.00]” upon conviction of a

third-degree felony. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1101(3). Thus, Section 1101 limits the

fine that may be imposed upon conviction of a third-degree felony but does

not mandate the imposition of a fine. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 205

A.3d 1247, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating, Section 1101 defines the

maximum fines). In imposing the non-mandatory fine of $500.00, the trial

____________________________________________

5 Section 9726(c) of the Sentencing Code states,

       The [trial] court shall not sentence a defendant to pay a fine unless
       it appears of record that: (1) the defendant is or will be able to
       pay the fine; and (2) the fine will not prevent the defendant from
       making restitution or reparation to the victim of the crime.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9726(c) (formatting modified).

                                           -6-
J-S10012-24

court needed to first inquire about Appellant’s ability to pay the fine. Ford,

217 A.3d at 829.

       At the August 4, 2023 sentencing hearing, Appellant presented himself

as a sovereign citizen and represented that he was at the sentencing hearing

“by special appearance.” N.T., 8/4/23, at 3, 8. After a contentious discussion

in which Appellant, inter alia, requested that the trial court prove the existence

of the crime to which Appellant pleaded guilty, together with the existence of

an alleged debt,6 the trial court stated,

       It's a crimes code violation, Section 2703.1, which you were told
       at the time of the plea.

       I now sentence you as follows. You will pay the costs of
       prosecution, an administrative fee of $250[.00] and a fine of
       $500[.00.]

N.T., 8/4/23, at 15. A review of the sentencing hearing transcript does not

reveal an inquiry by the trial court into Appellant’s ability to pay a fine. As

such, we are constrained to vacate Appellant’s sentence and remand for

resentencing. In resentencing Appellant, if the trial court seeks to impose a

fine, the trial court must first inquire into Appellant’s ability to pay said fine,

and, if convinced that Appellant can pay such a fine, the trial court may impose
____________________________________________

6 In terms of an alleged “debt” that Appellant believed he owed and his request

to discharge the same, Appellant misunderstood the amended criminal
information that listed the aforementioned criminal charges filed against him
and the possible maximum sentences and maximum fines that could be
imposed. Appellant believed this information created a debt, when, in fact,
the information merely informed Appellant of the potential maximum
sentences and maximum fines that could be imposed for each criminal charge.

                                           -7-
J-S10012-24

a fine up to the statutory maximum of $15,000.00.         See 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 1101(3).

     As to Appellant’s claim that the trial court imposed a mandatory

minimum sentence in violation of Alleyne, supra, we find this argument to

be of no avail. The record reveals that Appellant pleaded guilty to one count

of aggravated harassment by prisoner, a third-degree felony. Appellant had

a prior record score of 5 and an offense gravity score of 6. See Pre-Sentence

Investigation Report. As such, the standard guidelines called for a minimum

sentence of 21 to 27 months’ incarceration. See 204 Pa.Code § 303.16(a)

(effective Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 1, 2024).   Here, the trial court sentenced

Appellant to a minimum sentence of 27 months’ incarceration. Contrary to

Appellant’s assertion, the trial court did not impose a mandatory minimum

sentence that implicated Alleyne. Rather, the trial court merely imposed a

minimum sentence within the recommended standard guidelines for the crime

to which Appellant, with his prior record score and offense gravity score,

pleaded guilty. See Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating, “where a sentence is

within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the

sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”). Therefore, we discern

no error or abuse of discretion in the imposition of a minimum sentence of 27

months’ incarceration.

     For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and

agree with the judgment of sentence in all aspects except the portion of the

judgment of sentence imposing a fine of $500.00. As discussed supra, we

                                    -8-
J-S10012-24

conclude that the fine imposed by the trial court constitutes an illegal sentence

based upon the record before us. Consequently, we are constrained to vacate

the judgment of sentence and remand this case for resentencing.

      Conviction affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded

for resentencing. Jurisdiction relinquished.

FILED: 4/4/2024

                                      -9-