Court Opinion

ID: 9939586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:11:15.789113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:25.759431
License: Public Domain

J-S27031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANDY JOSEPH OXENRIDER                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1706 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 9, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0001602-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                    FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2024

       Andy Joseph Oxenrider (“Oxenrider”) appeals from the judgment of

sentence for violations of the Controlled Substances Act.1 We affirm in part

and remand for resentencing.

       In August 2022, Pennsylvania State Trooper Ryan Sverchek (“Trooper

Sverchek”) went to Darkes Road in Lebanon County to investigate a landlord-

tenant dispute, resulting in Oxenrider’s arrest.2     During a search pursuant to

arrest, Trooper Sverchek recovered marijuana and a plastic baggie with

amphetamine residue.         See N.T., 10/19/22, at 16, 25-26, 34-39.

       In October 2022, a jury convicted Oxenrider of the charged offenses.

The court later imposed a sentence of one to three years of incarceration

concurrent with his sentence for a previous conviction and granted sentencing
____________________________________________

1 See 35 P.S. § 780-101-144.

2 Neither Oxenrider’s convictions nor his appeal involve that dispute.
J-S27031-23

credit for the thirty-eight days of incarceration Oxenrider served on this case

before trial.3 Because its sentencing order failed to address the applicability

of the recidivism risk reduction incentive statute (“RRRI”)4 to Oxenrider, in

May 2023, the trial court issued an amended sentencing order.

       Oxenrider filed a timely appeal5 and he and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.6

       Oxenrider presents the following issues for review:

       1.     Did the trial court err in not awarding [Oxenrider] credit for
       all time served . . . ?

       2.     Did the trial court err in not stating that [Oxenrider] is RRRI
       eligible in his sentencing order?

       3.    Did the trial court err in ruling that the Commonwealth
       presented evidence at trial that was sufficient to sustain a
       conviction [for possessing a controlled substance]?

Oxenrider’s Brief at 6 (some capitalization corrected).
____________________________________________

3 Oxenrider was imprisoned on this case from December 13th to 30th, 2021,

and from October 9, 2022, to November 9, 2022. See N.T. 11/9/22, at 12.

4 See 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501-4212.

5 The trial court sentenced Oxenrider on November 9, 2023. Oxenrider
delivered a pro se notice of appeal to prison authorities on December 5, 2023,
rendering this appeal timely.          See Pa.R.A.P. 121(f).       See also
Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623-24 (Pa. 2016) (holding a
pro se notice of appeal must be docketed even when the appellant is
represented by counsel and is used to compute whether an appeal is timely).

6 The trial court noted Oxenrider did not file his 1925(b) statement within
twenty-one days of being ordered to do so but found Oxenrider’s transfer
between prisons without counsel’s knowledge established both good cause
and a breakdown in the system permitting an extension of time to time to file
the statement. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/9/23, at 2 n.3.

                                           -2-
J-S27031-23

        Oxenrider’s first issue implicates his right to credit for time served.

        The statute addressing credit for time served provides, in relevant part,

that:

        [c]redit against the maximum and minimum term shall be given
        to the defendant for all time spent in custody as a result of the
        criminal charge for which a prison sentence is imposed or
        as a result of the conduct on which such a charged is based.
        Credit shall include credit for time spent in custody prior to trial,
        during trial, pending sentence, and pending the resolution of an
        appeal.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(1) (emphasis added). See Commonwealth v. Infante,

63 A.3d 358, 367 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “[a] defendant shall be given

credit for any days spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence, but

only if such commitment is on the offense for which the sentence is imposed”)

(citation omitted). A claim asserting the trial court failed to award time credit

implicates the legality of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d

1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018). Our standard of review of such questions is

de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See id.

        Oxenrider acknowledges that he was granted released on recognizance

(“ROR”) bail on April 20, 2022, but claims entitlement to credit for the time

he spent incarcerated from April 20, 2022, through December 23, 2022. See

Oxenrider’s Brief at 11.

        The trial court found that Oxenrider was not incarcerated on this case

between April 20, 2022 and December 23, 2022, apart from the time from his

October 19, 2022 trial until his November 9, 2022 sentencing. See Trial Court

                                        -3-
J-S27031-23

Opinion, 2/9/23, at 2-3. The court explained that Oxenrider appeared before

the court on April 20, 2022 after a bench warrant was issued for his failure to

appear on multiple dockets, and although monetary bail was set in several

other actions, Oxenrider was granted ROR bail in this case and signed the bail

bond on that date. He was not entitled to credit for time served on other

cases. See id. and n.4.

      We discern no error in the trial court’s ruling.      The record clearly

establishes the court granted Oxenrider ROR bail in this case on April 20,

2022, and released him on his own recognizance for the charges in this case.

See Bail Bond, 4/20/22. Oxenrider was not incarcerated on this case during

the period for which he seeks credit, except for the period the trial court

identifies between trial and sentencing, and the trial court properly declined

to award credit for Oxenrider’s incarceration on other cases. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9760(1); Infante, 63 A.3d at 367. The claim lacks merit.

      Oxenrider’s second issue concerns the trial court’s failure to address his

eligibility for RRRI at sentencing. RRRI seeks to encourage eligible offenders

to participate in “evidence-based programs that reduce the likelihood of

recidivism and improve public safety.” See 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4504(b). RRRI is

available to non-violent offenders who have not committed certain defined

sexual or drug trafficking offenses.       See 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503.        See

Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 276 A.3d 279, 281 (Pa. Super. 2022).

Sentencing courts assess an offender’s RRRI eligibility and state on the record

                                     -4-
J-S27031-23

whether the offender is eligible.          Challenges concerning RRRI sentences

implicate the legality of sentence and raise questions of law, over which this

Court’s scope of review is plenary and standard of review is de novo. See id.

       The trial court acknowledges it erred by failing to assess Oxenrider’s

RRRI eligibility and requests this Court remand for resentencing for it to state

Oxenrider’s eligibility for RRRI. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/9/23, at 3-4.

       We agree with the trial court that Oxenrider is due a remand for

resentencing and the determination of RRRI availability consistent with the

trial court’s May 2023 amended order. Accordingly, we remand for the limited

purpose of allowing the sentencing court to determine Oxenrider’s eligibility

to participate in an RRRI reentry program. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1).7

       Oxenrider’s third and final issue asserts the evidence was insufficient to

sustain his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. See 35 P.S.

§ 780113(a)(16).

       This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence under the following

standard:

             A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
       question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
       verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime
       charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
       reasonable doubt. . . . When reviewing a sufficiency claim[,] the

____________________________________________

7 See Risoldi, 276 A.3d at 282 n.6 (stating a sentencing court’s failure to
specify a defendant’s reentry plan does not require the vacation of the entire
sentencing scheme where the overall scheme is not affected).

                                           -5-
J-S27031-23

     court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable
     to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
     reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Stahl, 175 A.3d 301, 303-04 (Pa. Super. 2017) (added

emphasis removed).    In reviewing a sufficiency claim, this Court has also

acknowledged that:

     we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
     the fact-[]finder. . . . The Commonwealth may sustain its burden
     of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
     by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.          Moreover, in
     applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and
     all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
     finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and
     the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or
     none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).

     A person commits the crime of possession of a controlled substance

when he knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance, and he

is not registered under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic

Act (“the Act”) to do so. See 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(16). Methamphetamine is

a Schedule II controlled substance. See 35 P.S. § 780-104(2)(iii)(4). The

possession of “any quantity” of methamphetamine is sufficient to trigger

liability under the statute. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Graeff, 442

A.2d 1153, 1156-57 (Pa. Super. 1982).

     Oxenrider asserts the Commonwealth’s forensic scientist, Paul Welte,

testified that “if the substance does not weigh .003 or more it is considered

                                    -6-
J-S27031-23

residue and does not have enough for potential abuse.” Oxenrider’s Brief at

15.

       The trial court held the Act criminalizes the possession of any quantity

of methamphetamine. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/9/23, at 5-6.

       The trial court’s ruling comports with the law; there is no de minimis

exception for methamphetamine possession. To the contrary, as this Court

has held, “the legislature enacted [section 780-104(2)(iii)] because it

considered methamphetamine in any quantity to be more dangerous than the

other substances enumerated in Schedule II”).         See Graeff, 442 A.2d at

1156-57 (emphasis added).               The evidence that Oxenrider possessed

methamphetamine sufficiently proved his guilt. See P.S. § 780-104(2)(iii)(4);

Graeff, 442 A.2d at 1157.8

____________________________________________

8 We also note that the alleged quote from Welte does not appear in the trial

transcript.

                                           -7-
J-S27031-23

      Judgment of sentence affirmed in part and vacated in part.   Case

remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/2024

                                    -8-