Court Opinion

ID: 9399344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 17:09:38.536399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.065846
License: Public Domain

J-S30022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    AMELIA WEIKEL                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 2301 EDA 2021

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2021
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-64-CR-0000059-2021

BEFORE:       STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY McCAFFERY, J.:                           FILED JUNE 2, 2023

        Amelia Weikel (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, following her guilty plea

to receiving stolen property.1 Previously, on April 26, 2023, this panel: (1)

remanded for the trial court to file a supplemental opinion, to address a

sentencing credit issue raised in the Anders2 brief filed by Appellant’s

attorney, John Martin, II, Esquire (Counsel).         We now vacate Appellant’s

judgment of sentence and remand for re-calculation of sentencing credit. We

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
J-S30022-22

also: (1) deny Appellant’s May 16, 2023, application to withdraw the appeal;

and (2) deny as moot her May 19th application to strike the May 16th

application.

       A discussion of the underlying facts and procedural history may be found

in this panel’s April 26, 2023, memorandum. We summarize the trial court

imposed 10 to 30 months’ imprisonment, and granted 204 days’ sentencing

credit.   In a post-sentence motion, Appellant sought additional sentencing

credit, but was denied relief.

       On appeal to this Court, Counsel’s Anders brief raised a single issue:

whether Appellant was entitled to the additional sentencing credit. This panel

observed the trial court’s opinion, Anders brief, and the Commonwealth’s

brief all lacked discussion of relevant legal authority, and furthermore, the

record was not clear as to whether Appellant had satisfied bail on the instant

charges.3    We thus concluded we were unable to review the merits of the

issue, and remanded for the trial court to file a supplemental opinion. We also

denied Counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation.

____________________________________________

3 See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(“[A]ll time served by a parole violator while awaiting disposition on new
charges must be credited to the original sentence if the inmate remains in
custody solely on a Board detainer. [However, i]f the inmate is incarcerated
prior to disposition and has both a detainer and has failed for any reason to
satisfy bail, the credit must be applied to the new sentence by the sentencing
court.”) (citation omitted).

                                           -2-
J-S30022-22

      While the matter was remanded, Appellant’s counsel filed, on May 4,

2023, an application to withdraw this appeal. On May 15th, this panel denied

the application, without prejudice for Appellant to refile it with a discussion

of the reasons for the withdrawal, confirmation that Counsel consulted with

Appellant, and proof of service of the new application on Appellant. On May

16th, Appellant filed a second application to withdraw.

      Next, on May 18, 2023, the trial court filed the supplemental opinion.

This brief opinion: (1) explained Appellant failed to post bail on the instant

charges; and (2) thus opined she was entitled to additional sentencing credit.

The court thus requested this Court to vacate Appellant’s judgment of

sentence and remand for re-sentencing.        On May 19th, Appellant filed an

application to strike the second application to withdraw this appeal; she stated

she wished to continue litigating this appeal.

      In light of the foregoing, we DENY Appellant’s May 16, 2023, application

to withdraw the appeal, and DENY AS MOOT her May 19th application to strike

the May 16th application.      Consistent with the trial court’s supplemental

opinion, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing,

limited solely to the calculation of sentencing credit.

      Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.

Appellant’s May 16, 2023, application to withdraw appeal denied. Appellant’s

May 19, 2023, application to strike the application to withdraw appeal denied

as moot. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                      -3-
J-S30022-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/2/2023

                          -4-