Court Opinion

ID: 9955525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:14:22.016526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.012562
License: Public Domain

J-S08025-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  JOSEPH LODUCA                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 955 MDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-22-CR-0001345-2021

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                               FILED MARCH 28, 2024

       Joseph LoDuca (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the order denying his

pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.           Because Appellant’s petition

challenged the application of the trial court’s sentencing order by the

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), the trial court denied the

petition, concluding Appellant’s claim falls within the original jurisdiction of the

Commonwealth Court. We agree, and therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08025-24

       On July 9, 2021, Appellant pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver

methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.1, 2                See N.T.,

7/9/21, at 2-6.      On the same day, the trial court imposed the negotiated

sentence of 1 to 2 years in prison, plus a fine and costs. Id. at 7. Further,

the Commonwealth waived any ineligibility for the Recidivism Risk Reduction

Incentive (RRRI) program.          Id. at 8.     The trial court then specified that

Appellant would be RRRI eligible after nine months. Id.3

       On January 27, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se motion, which he titled a

petition for habeas corpus.        Therein, Appellant argued the DOC unlawfully

modified his plea agreement by deeming him ineligible for RRRI at that time.

See Petition for Habeas Corpus, 1/27/23; see also id., attach. (Sentence

Status Summary).

       The trial court explained what next transpired as follows:

       On February 27, 2023, [the court] denied [Appellant’s] request,
       explaining that, since he was complaining about the actions of the
       DOC and not [the trial c]ourt, the appropriate course of action was
       to file an original action in the Commonwealth Court.

____________________________________________

1 75 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (32).

2 Appellant represented himself during the plea hearing, with appointed
counsel acting as standby counsel.

3 Appellant subsequently filed a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act

(PCRA), see 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. The PCRA court dismissed the
petition after a hearing. Appellant filed a pro se appeal, which was docketed
in this Court at 1184 MDA 2022. After filing multiple pro se applications at
that docket, Appellant ultimately withdrew his appeal.

                                           -2-
J-S08025-24

              On March 9, 2023, [Appellant] filed a motion for
       reconsideration of [the] February 27th order. On March 13, 2023,
       he filed an addendum to his motion for reconsideration. On March
       14, 2023, [the court] denied the request for reconsideration.

             On June 1, 2023, [Appellant] submitted another petition [for
       habeas corpus] seeking to relitigate his RRRI claim. On June 6,
       2023, [the trial court] issued the order from which [Appellant]
       now appeals in which [the court], to assist [Appellant], clarified
       that the Commonwealth waived RRRI ineligibility and that his
       RRRI minimum should be nine (9) months. However, [the court]
       reiterated [its] previous position that [it was] without jurisdiction
       to do more and that [Appellant’s] request for relief was being
       presented to the wrong court.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/23, at 1-2 (unnumbered).

       Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. The trial court did not

direct Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal. Nevertheless, the trial court filed an opinion.4

       On appeal, Appellant renews his claim that the DOC illegally modified

his sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 6. As a threshold matter, we recognize

that   Appellant     properly    sought        relief   without   invoking   the   PCRA.5

Commonwealth v. Perry, 563 A.2d 511, 513 (Pa. Super. 1989) (“[A]

challenge to the [DOC’s] computation or construction of a sentence … imposed

____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed an additional pleading on June 14, 2023, which he titled a
motion to reconsider the court’s June 6, 2023, order. Therein, Appellant
“averred that he was serving an illegal sentence and that the Pennsylvania
Constitution grants a Court of Common Pleas jurisdiction in all matters.” Rule
1925(a) Opinion, 7/14/23, at 2 (unnumbered) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The trial court again explained Appellant must raise his challenge
in the Commonwealth Court. Order, 6/19/23.

5 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                           -3-
J-S08025-24

may not be brought by a PCRA petition.”); see also Commonwealth v.

Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 395 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding a claim that DOC failed

to follow the trial court’s unambiguous sentence was not cognizable under the

PCRA).

      In Perry, this Court explained the proper courses of action:

      If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous
      computation of sentence by the [DOC], then the appropriate
      vehicle for redress would be an original action in the
      Commonwealth Court challenging the [DOC’s] computation. If,
      on the other hand, the alleged error is thought to be attributable
      to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a
      writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for
      clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed.

Perry, 563 A.2d at 512-13 (citations omitted).

      Appellant has not alleged an ambiguity in the trial court’s sentencing

order. Appellant instead challenges the DOC’s calculation and application of

his minimum sentence for RRRI eligibility.    In essence, Appellant seeks to

compel the DOC to release him to the RRRI program. Thus, an original action

in the Commonwealth Court, rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

is the proper vehicle for Appellant’s challenge. See id.

      Order affirmed.

                                     -4-
J-S08025-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/28/2024

                           -5-