Court Opinion

ID: 9894376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 16:10:36.895559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:28.711290
License: Public Domain

J-S31006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
                                                :
  WILLIAM A. FOSTER                             :
                                                :
                        Appellant               :   No. 80 EDA 2023

           Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 5, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-45-CR-0001551-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2023

       Appellant, William A. Foster, appeals from the December 5, 2022 order

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County that denied his

petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

       The     record     reveals     that,    at   trial     court     docket     number

CP-45-CR-0001551-2018           (“1551-CR-2018”),           Appellant   pled     guilty   to

possession of firearm prohibited.1         Guilty Plea and Colloquy, 10/9/19.             On

October 8, 2019, Appellant was sentenced at 1551-CR-2018 to 5 to 10 years’

incarceration and ordered to pay the costs of prosecution. Sentencing Order,

10/9/19.     The sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018 was ordered to run

concurrently to the June 11, 2019 sentences previously imposed at trial court
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1).
J-S31006-23

dockets         CP-45-CR-0002157-2018             (“2157-CR-2018”)            and

CP-45-CR-0002160-2018 (“2160-CR-2018”), as discussed more fully infra.

Id.    Furthermore, the trial court ordered the sentence imposed at

1551-CR-2018 to commence on June 11, 2019, the same date on which

Appellant was sentenced at 2157-CR-2018 and 2160-CR-2018 and 119 days

before the actual October 8, 2019 sentencing date at 1551-CR-2018.            Id.

Appellant did not file a direct appeal and, as such, his sentence at

1551-CR-2018 became final on November 8, 2019.               See Pa.R.A.P. 903

(stating that, a notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry

of the order from which the appeal is taken”); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 9545(b)(3) (stating, “[a] judgment becomes final at the conclusion of direct

review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United

States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of the time

for seeking the review”).

      On September 21, 2019, Appellant filed pro se a PCRA petition,

asserting, inter alia, that his sentence at 1551-CR-2018 was illegal because

the trial court failed to award credit for time served after his bail at

1551-CR-2018 was revoked on August 29, 2018.             Pro Se PCRA Petition,

9/21/19, at 4. On September 25, 2019, counsel was appointed to represent

Appellant.

      On October 30, 2020, counsel for Appellant filed an amended PCRA

petition, asserting, inter alia, that trial counsel “was ineffective in not making

a valid and critical objection to an illegal sentence at the time of [Appellant’s]

                                      -2-
J-S31006-23

sentencing.”        Amended        PCRA    Petition,   10/30/20,      at        ¶7(b).    The

Commonwealth filed a response to Appellant’s amended petition on November

2, 2020.

       The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding Appellant’s

amended petition on February 9, 2021, at the conclusion of which the PCRA

court ordered each party to submit a memorandum of law by March 10, 2021.

PCRA Court Order, 2/9/21. The Commonwealth submitted its memorandum

of law on March 10, 2021, and Appellant submitted a memorandum of law on

March 11, 2021, which the PCRA court accepted as having been timely filed.

On March 24, 2021, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a second

amended PCRA petition, having found that “the [first] amended PCRA

[petition]   is   irreconcilable    with   the   relief   requested        in    [Appellant’s]

memorandum of law.”2           PCRA Court Order, 3/24/21, at ¶10 (extraneous

capitalization omitted).      Appellant was ordered to file his second amended

PCRA petition by April 16, 2021, and the Commonwealth was ordered to file a

____________________________________________

2 In particular, the PCRA court found that

       In the amended PCRA, [Appellant] raised two ineffective
       assistance of counsel claims. If granted, [the PCRA] court would
       reinstate [Appellant’s] appellate rights, after which [Appellant]
       could file a post-sentence motion challenging the alleged illegal
       sentence. In contrast, in [Appellant’s] memorandum of law,
       [Appellant] raise[d] an illegal sentence claim - there is no mention
       of ineffective assistance of [trial] counsel. Relief for this claim
       would require the [PCRA] court to vacate the sentencing order.

PCRA Court Order, 3/24/21, at ¶10 (extraneous capitalization omitted).

                                           -3-
J-S31006-23

response by May 7, 2021. Id. at 4. On May 7, 2021, the Commonwealth filed

a response, stating “[t]o date, [Appellant] has no new filings [to which] the

Commonwealth can respond[.]” Commonwealth Response, 5/7/21, at ¶4. On

May 19, 2021, Appellant filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing,

which the PCRA court subsequently granted.

      On September 9, 2021, having previously granted several continuances

pertaining to the requested evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court appointed

new counsel to represent Appellant. On December 7, 2021, the PCRA court

continued the evidentiary hearing and ordered Appellant to file his second

amended petition no later than January 3, 2022.       Appellant filed a second

amended petition on January 3, 2022, asserting that trial counsel “was

ineffective for not making a valid and critical objection to an illegal sentence

at the time of [Appellant’s] sentencing[.]” Second Amended PCRA Petition,

1/3/22, at ¶11(b). Appellant argued that he should have received credit for

time served toward the sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018 as of August 29,

2018, which was the date his bail at 1551-CR-2018 was revoked. Id.

      On April 29, 2022, upon concluding an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA

court ordered the parties to file memoranda of law within 30 days of receipt

of the hearing transcript. PCRA Court Order, 4/29/22. The Commonwealth

filed its memorandum of law on August 18, 2022.             Appellant filed his

memorandum of law on September 1, 2022. On December 5, 2022, the PCRA

court denied Appellant’s petition.

                                     -4-
J-S31006-23

       On January 4, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On January 5,

2023, the PCRA court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure

1925(b) within 21 days of said order. On February 14, 2023, the PCRA court

filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion, stating that Appellant failed to file a Rule

1925(b) statement and, therefore, any issues were waived on appeal. PCRA

Court Opinion, 2/14/23. Alternatively, the PCRA court stated that, if Appellant

did not waive appellate review, the PCRA court would rely upon the opinion

that accompanied its December 5, 2022 order denying Appellant’s petition.

Id.

       In his appellate brief, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

       Whether the [PCRA] court erred [or] abused its discretion in
       denying and dismissing Appellant's [PCRA] petition for ineffective
       assistance of counsel[ on the grounds that Appellant was] entitled
       to a time credit on a concurrent sentence on the matter before the
       court?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (extraneous capitalization omitted).3

       Preliminarily, we must address whether Appellant waived all issues

raised on appeal for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Our Supreme

Court, in Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), set forth a

bright-line rule that “[a]ny issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement

will be deemed waived” when an appellant fails to file a Rule 1925(b)

____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth did not file a brief in this matter.

                                           -5-
J-S31006-23

statement after being ordered to do so by the trial (or PCRA) court. Lord,

719 A.2d at 420; see also Commonwealth v. Armolt, 294 A.3d 364, 379

(Pa. 2023) (affirming the bright-line waiver rule announced in Lord);

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating, issues not included in a Rule 1925(b)

statement are waived).

         Although Lord announced a bright-line waiver rule, a narrow exception

exists     when    the    claim    implicates   the    legality    of    sentence.     See

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating,

“[a] claim asserting that the trial court failed to award credit for time served

implicates the legality of sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Williams,

920 A.2d 887, 888 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that, an illegal sentence

claim     operates       as   an   exception    to    the   bright-line     waiver    rule);

Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating

that, a legality of sentence claim cannot be waived for failure to file a Rule

1925(b)      statement        provided   that   jurisdiction      has,   otherwise,   been

established); Armolt, 294 A.3d at 380 (stating, claims implicating the legality

of sentence are nonwaivable).

         Here, Appellant’s claim that the trial court failed to award credit for time

served implicates the legality of his sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018. See

Gibbs, 181 A.3d at 1166. Although Appellant couched his challenge to the

legality of his sentence in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a legality

of sentence claim is cognizable under the PCRA as a stand-alone claim and is

always subject to review in a timely PCRA petition.                      See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

                                           -6-
J-S31006-23

§ 9543(a)(2)(vii) (stating that, to be eligible for relief, a PCRA petitioner must

plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, inter alia, the

sentence imposed was greater than the lawful maximum); see also

Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (stating that, a

legality of sentence claim is always subject to review within the PCRA,

provided   the   reviewing    court   has    jurisdiction   over   the   matter);

Commonwealth v. Clarke, 252 A.3d 243, 2021 WL 777769, at *7 n.6,

*8 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum) (stating that, although

the legality of sentence claim was formulated as an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim, this Court need only consider the merits of the illegal sentence

claim). As such, we proceed to address Appellant’s illegal sentence claim.

      In addressing Appellant’s issue, we are mindful of our well-settled

standard and scope of review of an order denying a PCRA petition. Proper

appellate review of a PCRA court’s dismissal of a petition is limited to an

examination of “whether the PCRA court’s determination is supported by the

record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988,

992 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “The PCRA court’s findings will not

be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified record.”

Commonwealth v. Lawson, 90 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted). “This Court grants great deference to the findings of the PCRA court,

and we will not disturb those findings merely because the record could support

a contrary holding.”    Commonwealth v. Hickman, 799 A.2d 136, 140

(Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). In contrast, we review the PCRA court’s

                                      -7-
J-S31006-23

legal conclusions de novo.     Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16, 20

(Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 785 (Pa. 2014).

      Here, the PCRA court provided the following summary of Appellant’s

criminal history relevant to his legality of sentence claim:

                                2271-CR-2016

      [The    criminal    matter    filed at   trial    court    docket
      CP-45-CR-0002271-2016 (“2271-CR-2016”)] is only relevant in
      that [Appellant was found to have violated his parole] on
      September 20, 2018. [By way of background,] from November
      2017[,] until June 5, 2018, [Appellant] was on parole [at]
      2271-CR-2016. On June 5, 2018, as a result of the charges [filed
      against Appellant at] 1551-CR-2018, [the trial court] granted the
      Commonwealth's motion to violate [Appellant’s] parole [at
      2271-CR-2016 on September 20, 2018.]            Accordingly, [at
      2271-CR-2016, the trial court] ordered that [Appellant] be
      remanded to [the Monroe County correctional facility with] a new
      [release] date of October 15, 2019.

      On August 8, 2018, the [trial] court granted [Appellant’s] motion
      [to resume parole]. However, pursuant to the charges [filed
      against Appellant at] 2160-CR-2018, [] on September 20, 2018,
      the [trial] court again revoked [Appellant’s] parole [at
      2271-CR-2016] and ordered [Appellant] to be remanded to [the
      county correctional facility].

      On November 21, 2018, [the trial] court granted [Appellant’s]
      third motion [to resume parole filed at 2271-CR-2016, and as of
      December 5, 2022, Appellant’s parole at 2271-CR-2016] has not
      been revoked.

                                2157-CR-2018

      On June 1, 2018, the Pocono Township Police filed a criminal
      complaint against [Appellant at 2157-CR-2018, stemming from
      his driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance
      (“DUI”)] on May 11, 2018. On September 25, 2018, bail was set
      at $5,000[.00] unsecured.

      Subsequently, on October, 25, 2018, [Appellant] was charged [at
      2157-CR-2018] with four counts related to the DUI [incident.]

                                      -8-
J-S31006-23

     On March 8, 2019, after a jury trial, [Appellant] was found guilty
     of three [] of [the] four counts [at 2157-CR-2018].

     On June 11, 2019, [Appellant] was sentenced to an aggregate
     period of incarceration [of] not less than [33] months nor more
     than [84] months, [with the term of incarceration set to run
     concurrently] to [the sentence] imposed [at] 2160-CR-2018[.]

                              2160-CR-2018

     On August 23, 2018, the Pennsylvania State Police filed a
     [criminal] complaint against [Appellant] for [drug-related offenses
     at 2160-CR-2018]. Th[at] same day, bail was set at $10,000[.00]
     monetary, which [Appellant] did not post.

     On November 1, 2018, [Appellant] was charged by criminal
     information with [10] counts [stemming from] the [drug-related]
     incident[] at 2160-CR-2018.

     On April 2, 2019, [Appellant pled] guilty to [one count of a
     drug-related offense]. In return, the Commonwealth agreed to
     "nolle pros [the] remaining charges. [The parties presented a]
     joint recommendation of [a] standard range sentence[, and the
     Commonwealth did not object to Appellant being permitted to
     participate in the recidivism risk reduction incentive (“RRRI”)
     program,] if qualified."

     On June 11, 2019, [Appellant] was sentenced to incarceration for
     a period of not less than [27] months nor more than [60 months,
     [with the term of incarceration set to run concurrently] to the
     sentence imposed at [2157-CR-2018. Further, Appellant received
     a time credit of 292 days towards the sentence imposed at
     2160-CR-2018.]

                              1551-CR-2018

     On May 2, 2018, the Pocono Mountain Regional Police filed a
     criminal complaint against [Appellant at 1551-CR-2018] for
     unlawfully possessing a stolen firearm and controlled substances
     that were uncovered during a January 17, 2017 traffic stop. On
     May 11, 2018, bail was set at $50,000[.00] monetary[,] which
     [Appellant] posted on May 14, 2018.

     On July 23, 2018, [Appellant] was charged by criminal information
     with nine counts related to the traffic stop[ at] 1551-CR-2018.

                                    -9-
J-S31006-23

       On August 29, 2018, as a result of the new charges pending at
       [2160-CR-2018 and 2157-CR-2018,] the [trial] court revoked
       [Appellant’s] bail [at 1551-CR-2018.]

       On September 8, 2019, [Appellant] pled guilty to [one count of
       possession of a firearm prohibited, a second-degree felony.] In
       return[,] the Commonwealth agreed to "dismiss [the] remaining
       charges. [The Commonwealth also a]greed [to a] sentence of [5]
       to [10] years[’ incarceration, with the term of incarceration set]
       to run concurrent[ly] to [the] sentences [previously imposed] at
       [2157-CR-2018 and 2160-CR-2018]." The instant plea was a
       [negotiated] closed[-]plea [agreement] approved by the [trial
       court.]    On October 8, 2019, [the trial court] sentenced
       [Appellant] to the agreed upon term.

       Summary of [Appellant’s] Incarceration for the Years 2017-2020

       Prior to August 23, 2018, [Appellant] was not incarcerated
       [because he] posted bail [at 1551-CR-2018 on May 14, 2018,]
       and [resumed parole at 2271-CR-2016 on August 8, 2018.] On
       August 23, 2018, [Appellant] was arrested [at 2160-CR-2018,]
       and the Commonwealth moved to revoke [the] bail [at
       1551-CR-2018. Appellant’s] bail at 1551-CR-2018 was revoked
       on August 29, 2018. [As a result of the criminal charges filed at
       2160-CR-2018, Appellant’s] parole [at 2271-CR-2016] was
       violated on September 20, 2018.

       On November 21, 2018, [Appellant resumed parole at
       2271-CR-2016] after [serving] 90 days of incarceration.
       [Appellant] remained on parole [at 2271-CR-2016] until his
       maximum date of October 15, 2019. However, [Appellant] was
       incarcerated for the duration of [his] parole [at 2271-CR-2016.]

       On June 11, 2019, [Appellant] was sentenced [at 2157-CR-2018
       and 2160-CR-2018], at which point he had been continuously
       incarcerated for 292 days.[4] [The concurrent nature of the]
____________________________________________

4 At 2160-CR-2018, Appellant was arrested on August 23, 2018, and did not

post bail.   Appellant remained incarcerated at 2160-CR-2018 until his
sentencing on June 11, 2019, which was a period of 292 days. The trial court
credited Appellant’s sentence at 2160-CR-2018 with 292 days for time served.
The PCRA court explained that the bail set at 2157-CR-2018 on September
25, 2018, was unsecured and, as such, none of Appellant’s 292 days of

                                          - 10 -
J-S31006-23

       sentences [imposed at 2157-CR-2018 and 2160-CR-2018]
       resulted in [an aggregate term] of incarceration [of 33] months
       [to 84] months. [Appellant] received a [] credit for time served
       of 292 days [at 2160-CR-2018].

       On October [8], 2019, [the trial court] sentenced [Appellant at
       1551-CR-2018. At this] point [Appellant] had been continuously
       incarcerated for 411 days[ (August 23, 2018, to October 8, 2019).
       The trial court] sentenced [Appellant at 1551-CR-2018] to [a term
       of] incarceration [of] 60 to 120 months[, which was set to run]
       concurrently to [the sentences] imposed [at 2157-CR-2018 and
       2160-CR-2018.]       By commencing [the sentence imposed at
       1551-CR-2018] on June 11, 2019, [the trial court] credited
       [Appellant] with time served of 119 days [(June 11, 2019, to
       October 8, 2019)].

       In total, Defendant received a time credit of 411 days [(August
       23, 2018, to October 8, 2019)].

PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at 1-5 (extraneous capitalization, original

brackets, and certain footnotes omitted).

       In addressing the merits of Appellant’s illegal sentence claim, the PCRA

court held that Appellant “is ineligible to receive an additional 292[-]day time

credit against his sentence [imposed at 1551-CR-2018] as the [trial c]ourt

applied the same to [the] sentence [imposed at 2160-CR-2018].” PCRA Court

Opinion, 12/5/22, at 12. The PCRA court explained,

          [Appellant] received a 292-day time credit against the
          sentence[] imposed [at 2160-CR-2018. Appellant] also
          received a 119[-]day time credit against the sentence
          imposed [at 1551-CR-2018]. In total, [Appellant] was
          credited with 411 days of time served, accounting for each
          day he was incarcerated prior to the final sentencing date.
____________________________________________

incarceration 9August 23, 2018, to June 11, 2019) was attributable to the
criminal charges filed at 2157-CR-2018. PCRA Court Opinion, 12/5/22, at
4 n.5.

                                          - 11 -
J-S31006-23

         Therefore, [Appellant] received the time credit to which he
         was entitled.

Id. at 11.

      Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code governing how a trial court applies

credit for time served states, in pertinent part,

      Credit against the maximum term and any 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 charge 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). This Court has held 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 sentence is imposed.

Credit is not given, however, for a commitment by reason of a separate and

distinct offense.”   Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504, 520-521

(Pa. Super. 2016) (original quotation marks omitted), citing Commonwealth

v. Clark, 885 A.2d 1030, 1034 (Pa. Super. 2005). “While in cases involving

a multitude of offenses occurring in quick succession determining which

sentences a defendant is entitled to credit for presentence detainment

becomes more difficult, the general rule regarding the inquiry seems simple

enough - a defendant is entitled to credit only once for presentence

detainment.”    Commonwealth v. Davis, 852 A.2d 392, 400 (Pa. Super.

2004) (emphasis added; citation omitted), appeal denied, 686 A.2d 1197 (Pa.

2005); see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257

                                     - 12 -
J-S31006-23

(Pa. Super. 2014) (stating, “a defendant is not entitled to receive credit

against more than one sentence for the same time served”, i.e., double

credit).

      In the case sub judice, on June 1, 2018, a criminal complaint was filed

against Appellant at 2157-CR-2018, setting forth criminal charges stemming

from a DUI-related incident. Appellant was not taken into police custody as a

result of these charges.     While the criminal charges were pending at

2157-CR-2018, Appellant was incarcerated on August 23, 2018, due to

criminal charges filed against him at 2160-CR-2018 for, inter alia, possession

of a controlled substance. Appellant was unable to post bail at 2160-CR-2018,

which was set at $10,000.00 monetary.         As such, Appellant remained

incarcerated due to the criminal charges filed at 2160-CR-2018.

      While Appellant remained incarcerated for pending charges filed at

2160-CR-2018, the trial court, on August 29, 2018, revoked Appellant’s bail

at 1551-CR-2018 due to the charges that were filed against Appellant at

2160-CR-2018 and 2157-CR-2018. On September 25, 2018, the trial court

set bail at 2157-CR-2018 in the amount of $5,000.00 – unsecured.

      On March 8, 2019, a jury found Appellant guilty at 2157-CR-2018 of

three offenses stemming from his DUI-related incident.     On April 2, 2019,

Appellant pled guilty to 1 count of a drug-related offense at 2160-CR-2018.

On June 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant at 2157-CR-2018 to a

term of 27 to 60 months’ incarceration.      That same day, the trial court

sentenced Appellant at 2160-CR-2018 to a term of 33 to 84 months’

                                    - 13 -
J-S31006-23

incarceration.     The sentence imposed at 2157-CR-2018 was set to run

concurrently to the sentence imposed at 2160-CR-2018. At 2160-CR-2018,

Appellant was awarded credit for time served of 292 days (August 23, 2018,

to June 11, 2019).

       On September 8, 2019, Appellant pled guilty at 1551-CR-2018 to

possession of a firearm prohibited. On October 8, 2019, the trial court, in

accordance with a negotiated closed plea agreement, sentenced Appellant to

5 to 10 years’ incarceration with the sentence set to run concurrently to the

sentences imposed at 2157-CR-2018 and 2160-CR-2018. The trial court also

ordered the sentence at 1551-CR-2018 to commence on June 11, 2019. In

other words, the trial court “back dated” the commencement date of the

sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018, which effectively reduced Appellant’s

sentence of 5 to 10 years’ incarceration by 119 days (June 11, 2019, to

October 8, 2019).5

       Upon review, we discern no error or abuse of discretion in the PCRA

court’s order denying Appellant’s petition asserting a challenge to the legality
____________________________________________

5 Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 705(B) states,

       When more than one sentence is imposed at the same time on a
       defendant, or when a sentence is imposed on a defendant who is
       sentenced for another offense, the [trial court] shall state whether
       the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. If the
       sentence is to run concurrently, the sentence shall
       commence from the date of imposition unless otherwise
       ordered by the [trial court].

Pa.R.Crim.P. 705(B) (emphasis added).

                                          - 14 -
J-S31006-23

of his sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018.        Appellant was continuously

incarcerated for 411 days, from August 23, 2018, to October 8, 2019.

Appellant was awarded 292 days credit for time served towards the sentence

imposed at 2160-CR-2018 because the time served was the result of the

criminal charges filed against Appellant at 2160-CR-2018 on August 23, 2018,

for which he was unable to post bail and remained incarcerated until his

sentencing on June 11, 2019. Appellant then received 119 days credit against

the sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018 when the trial court “back dated” the

commencement of his sentence at 1551-CR-2018 to June 11, 2019. As such,

Appellant received credit for all 411 days (292 days + 119 days) of

pre-resolution incarceration. Appellant was not entitled to a “double credit”

by having the 292-days of time served (August 23, 2018, to June 11, 2019)

credited toward the sentence imposed at 1551-CR-2018. See Ellsworth, 97

A.3d at 1257.   Therefore, Appellant’s legality of sentence claim is without

merit.

     Order affirmed.

Date: 11/01/2023

                                   - 15 -