Court Opinion

ID: 9889859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:51.417849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.013172
License: Public Domain

J-S34015-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 SHERMAN COLEMAN                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 323 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 6, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-02-CR-0000275-1988

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 SHERMAN COLEMAN                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 324 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 6, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-02-CR-0000279-1988

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
              v.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
 SHERMAN COLEMAN                       :
                                       :
                   Appellant           :   No. 325 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 6, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-02-CR-0000281-1988

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
J-S34015-23

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                       FILED: October 11, 2023

       Sherman Coleman appeals,1 pro se, from the order, entered in the Court

of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, denying his motion for expungement.

After review, we affirm.

       In 1988, Coleman was charged and convicted with numerous offenses

related to Coleman’s crime spree where, over the course of two days in

December 1987, he robbed a bakery, robbed a woman at knifepoint at a bus

stop, and wrestled a gun away from a police officer and shot at him.

       On September 13, 1988, the trial court sentenced Coleman to an

aggregate term of 30 to 60 years’ imprisonment. Coleman filed a timely post-

sentence motion, which was denied, followed by a timely notice of appeal.

This Court affirmed Coleman’s judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v.

Coleman, 570 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super. 1989) (Table). Coleman did not file a

petition for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court.

____________________________________________

1 Coleman filed three separate notices of appeal, each of which listed all of the

above-captioned dockets, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 341. See Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (“where a single order resolves issues
arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for
each of those cases”). Nevertheless, this Court, in Commonwealth v.
Johnson, 236 A.3d 1141, 1148 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc), held that we
need not quash an appeal where the appellant filed the appropriate number
of notices of appeal from the underlying trial court dockets. See id.
Accordingly, we decline to quash these appeals.

Additionally, this Court, sua sponte, consolidated Coleman’s appeals on April
25, 2023, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 4/25/23.

                                           -2-
J-S34015-23

      In the decades that followed, Coleman filed one dozen petitions under

the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. Each of which

was either denied or dismissed, and subsequently affirmed by this Court.

      The following procedural history is relevant to the instant matter. On

January 13, 2015, Coleman filed a “Motion for Expungement.” The trial court

treated this motion as a PCRA petition, his twelfth, and, on January 14, 2015,

denied the PCRA petition.    In this petition, Coleman first argued that his

sentencing orders were invalid, and, as a result, he should receive

expungement. See Motion for Expungement, 1/13/15, at 2-8 (unpaginated).

Coleman appealed the denial of this motion, and this Court affirmed. See

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 131 A.3d 109 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Table).

      On September 27, 2015, Coleman, pro se, filed a “Motion to Compel,”

in which he asserted that the Department of Corrections (DOC) had sent him

invalid copies of his judgment of sentence. See Motion to Compel, 9/27/15,

at 1-6. In particular, Coleman sought to have the trial court compel the DOC

to provide the valid sentencing orders. Id. Ultimately, the trial court treated

this motion as Coleman’s thirteenth PCRA petition and denied it. Coleman

appealed to this Court and we affirmed. See Commonwealth v. Coleman,

159 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Table).

      On December 7, 2018, Coleman was released from prison, and began

serving the rest of his sentence on parole.

      On December 22, 2021, Coleman, pro se, filed another “Motion for

Expungement.”     On September 14, 2022, the trial court, the Honorable

                                     -3-
J-S34015-23

Edward Borkowski, conducted a hearing, at which the Commonwealth opposed

Coleman’s expungement. The Commonwealth explained that Coleman was

no longer incarcerated and was 70 years of age.        See N.T. Petition for

Expungement, 9/14/22, at 2-3. However, the Commonwealth argued that

Coleman could not be eligible for expungement because Coleman had not

been free of arrest or prosecution for 10 years after release from confinement

or supervision, as required by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(b)(1), and that Coleman

would consequently not be eligible for expungement until 2028. See N.T.

Petition for Expungement, 9/14/22, at 2-3; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

9122(b)(1).

      The trial court asked if Coleman understood this, to which Coleman

responded that his 1988 sentencing orders had not been entered into the

record. See N.T. Petition for Expungement, 9/14/22, at 3. Coleman argued

that because no valid sentencing orders had been entered into the record, his

1989 direct appeal was void because this Court lacked jurisdiction to affirm

an invalid, or non-existent, sentencing order. See id. at 3-4. The trial court

took the matter under advisement.

      On January 25, 2023, the Honorable Jill E. Rangos, the administrative

judge of the Criminal Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas,

filed an “Order of Sentence Correction” in the instant dockets. On March 2,

2023, Coleman, pro se, filed “Amended Objections” to the “Order of Sentence

Correction.” On March 6, 2023, the trial court denied Coleman’s Motion for

Expungement and his Amended Objections.

                                    -4-
J-S34015-23

     Coleman, pro se, filed timely notices of appeal and court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of error complained of on appeal. He

now raises the following claims for our review:

     [1. Whether] the trial court abused its discre[]tion by permitting
     the Commonwealth to enter a void judgment in the records of the
     court solely to deny this petitioner expungement relief in clear
     violation of petitioner’s rights to due pro[cess] and equal
     protection of the law[?]

     [2. Whether] the trial court abused its discre[]tion by attempting
     to confer jurisdiction where none existed and attempting to make
     the void judgment valid[?]

     [3. Whether] the trial court abused its discre[]tion [where] the
     trial court was fully aware that there was no final judgment
     entered in the [C]ourt of [C]ommon [P]leas, [C]riminal [D]ivision,
     criminal docket entries that gave the [S]uperior [C]ourt at 1521
     Pittsburgh 1989 jurisdiction to affirm the judgment of sentence[?]

     [4. Whether] the trial court abused its discre[]tion [where] the
     trial court [was] fully aware that a judgment is a void judgment if
     the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject
     matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with
     due process and permitted the void judgment to be entered into
     the records of the court to deny this petitioner expungement
     relief[?]

     [5. Whether] the trial court abused its discre[]tion [where] it is
     clear on the fact of the court records that the [S]uperior [C]ourt
     at 1521 Pittsburgh 1989[,] lacked subject[ ]matter jurisdiction
     and the court records clearly reflect[] that a final appealable order
     was not entered in the docket until 10/31/2022[,] well over thirty-
     four years later[?]

     [6. Whether] the [S]uperior [C]ourt at 1521 Pittsburgh 1989[,]
     lacked subject[ ]matter jurisdiction and the court records clearly
     reflects that a[] final appealable order was not entered in the
     docket until 10/31/2022 to deny this petitioner expungement
     relief[?]

                                     -5-
J-S34015-23

Brief for Appellant, at 6-7.

      All of Coleman’s issues are related, as they all pertain to his argument

that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relief despite the

sentencing orders being allegedly “void.” See Brief for Appellant, at 11-23.

Coleman further argues that he is entitled to expungement relief, as a result

of the purportedly “void” sentencing orders. See id. at 13, 18-19, 21.

      Preliminarily, we note that Coleman’s claims all fail because, as we noted

in Coleman’s appeal from the denial of his January 13, 2015, motion for

expungement:

      [Coleman]’s primary argument is that, because he has never been
      “duly convicted or sentenced by a court of law through a legally
      required written, signed and sealed sentencing order or
      judgment,” [h]e is entitled to have the information in his criminal
      history record expunged. Even assuming arguendo that the
      absence of a vali[d] sentencing order would entitle [Coleman] to
      expungement, [Coleman]’s claim is belied by the record. A review
      of the trial court’s criminal docket entries reveals that a sentencing
      order was entered on September 13, 1988. In addition, the
      sentencing order for the convictions which [Coleman] seeks to
      have expunged is located in the certified record.              [T]hus,
      [Coleman]’s claim is without merit.

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 131 A.3d 109 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Table).

      Additionally, at that time, we also noted that we had previously “rejected

[Coleman]’s challenge to the presence of a valid sentencing order in his

underlying claims in previous appeals.” See id. at 3** n.2 (compiling cases).

      Furthermore, Coleman has previously conceded that he has received

the sentencing orders in question. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 159

A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Table).          In that appeal, we noted that

                                      -6-
J-S34015-23

“[Coleman] had been able to appeal from and file PCRA petitions with respect

to these same orders in the past[.]” See id.

       As a result of this Court previously addressing Coleman’s claims multiple

times, we decline to further entertain Coleman’s claims on the matter. See

Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(“[W]hen an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted

to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of

the case, reverse its previously ruling[.]”); see also Commonwealth v.

Bocelli, 249 A.3d 123 (Pa. Super. 2021) (Table).2         In Bocelli, this Court

addressed a similar issue where the defendant argued his judgment of

sentence was void due to a lack of a written order. See Bocelli, supra. In

rejecting this claim, this Court observed that it had previously addressed and

rejected the defendant’s argument in a prior appeal. See id. Because we

have previously addressed all of Coleman’s claims regarding the purportedly

void sentencing orders, we are bound by the law of the case doctrine and need

not entertain it further. See McCandless, supra. Accordingly, Coleman is

entitled to no relief.

       To the extent that Coleman is still challenging the trial court’s purported

abuse of discretion in denying his Motion for Expungement, we observe that

the Crimes Code provides, in relevant part, that an individual’s criminal history

record “may be expunged when: [a]n individual who is the subject of the
____________________________________________

2 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential decisions of Superior

Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value.

                                           -7-
J-S34015-23

information reaches 70 years of age and has been free of arrest or prosecution

for ten years following final release from confinement or supervision.”

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(b)(1) (emphasis added).

     Here, the trial court was statutorily barred from granting expungement.

As the Commonwealth pointed out at the September 14, 2022 hearing,

Coleman was 70 years of age, and had been released from incarceration.

However, those are not the only two relevant factors. Indeed, pursuant to

section 9122(b)(1), Coleman must be free of arrest or prosecution for 10 years

following his release, before the trial court may consider expungement. See

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(b)(1). At the time of filing his motion for expungement,

Coleman had been free from arrest and prosecution for only four years, and

at the time the trial court decided the motion, only five years. Accordingly,

Coleman is entitled to no relief. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(b)(1).

     Order affirmed.

  10/11/2023

                                    -8-