Court Opinion

ID: 9889523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 16:11:15.353581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:04.892296
License: Public Domain

J-S29008-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KEVIN LEE JOHNSON                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1498 MDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 21, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
                Criminal Division at CP-67-CR-0000908-2020

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KEVIN LEE JOHNSON                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1499 MDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 21, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
                Criminal Division at CP-67-CR-0001913-2014

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                      FILED: OCTOBER 10, 2023

       Kevin Lee Johnson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after the trial court revoked his probation. Upon review, we vacate

the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29008-23

       On June 17, 2020, Appellant pled guilty at dockets 67-CR-0001913-

2014 (Case 1913) and 67-CR-0000908-2020 (Case 908), to driving under the

influence of a controlled substance (DUI) and driving while operating privilege

is suspended or revoked.1 The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

six months of house arrest, “five years [of] probation with restrictive

conditions,” and imposed $4,000 in fines. N.T., 6/17/20, at 3-4. Thereafter,

Appellant committed numerous technical violations of his probation.           After

Appellant failed to appear at a probation violation hearing, the trial court

issued bench warrants for his arrest. N.T., 9/21/22, at 2.

       Police apprehended Appellant and he appeared for a probation

revocation/sentencing hearing on September 21, 2022. The trial court initially

admonished Appellant: “In Case 1913, it’s your ninth [probation] violation. In

Case 908, it’s your third violation, and you just haven’t done anything.” Id.

at 3. The trial court found Appellant had violated his probation. Id.; see also

id. at 2-3 (court identifying Appellant’s failure to report to his probation officer

and failure to participate in drug testing and DUI education classes). The court

immediately sentenced Appellant, stating:

       In Case [] 1913 …, we sentence [Appellant] to the unserved
       balance of 248 days without the possibility of re-parole. In Case
       [] 908 …, we sentence [Appellant] to the unserved balance of 878
       days without the possibility of re-parole. We note this will be a
       state sentence, so [Appellant] is remanded to the custody of the
       Department of Corrections ….

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(1)(iii), 1543(b)(1.1)(ii).

                                           -2-
J-S29008-23

Id. at 3-4.

       Appellant filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence

(PSM) on October 3, 2022. Appellant claimed the sentence was “unduly harsh

under the circumstances as his violations consisted of only technical

[probation] violations.” PSM, 10/3/22, ¶ 4. Appellant further asserted that

the court erred in sentencing him without a pre-sentence investigation (PSI)

report. Id. ¶ 5. The trial court denied the PSM on October 12, 2022. On

October 21, 2022, Appellant timely filed notices of appeal at Case 1913 and

Case 908,2 in compliance with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969,

971 (Pa. 2018) (requiring appellants to file separate notices of appeal from

single orders that resolve issues on more than one docket). Appellant and the

trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Appellant presents two issues for review:

       I. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it
          sentenced [Appellant] to serve the unserved balance of his
          sentences without the possibility of parole where parole
          authority for a sentence over two years is vested exclusively in
          the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole?

       II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
           [Appellant] on his parole violations in … [Case] 1913 … and …
           [Case] 908 … without first obtaining a [PSI] Report or its
           equivalent or putting any reasons on the record for dispensing
           with the report?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (issues numbered and reordered).

____________________________________________

2 This Court granted Appellant’s motion to consolidate the appeals on March

29, 2023.

                                           -3-
J-S29008-23

      Appellant asks this Court to vacate his judgment of sentence as illegal.

See id. at 14-16. According to Appellant, “When the sentencing court ordered

[Appellant] to serve his sentence in a state correctional institut[ion], it lost

authority to determine whether or not he could be re-paroled.” Id. at 16; see

also N.T., 9/21/22, at 3-4 (court imposing respective sentences at Case 1913

and Case 908 “without the possibility of re-parole” (emphasis added)).

Appellant cites section 3815 of the Motor Vehicle Code, which provides:

      The power of the sentencing judge to grant parole shall apply only
      to those offenders whose sentences are being served in a county
      prison pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762 (relating to sentencing
      proceeding; place of confinement) or [75 Pa.C.S.A. §] 3804(d).
      The sentencing judge shall declare his intention to retain parole
      authority and supervision at the time of sentencing in cases in
      which he would not otherwise have parole authority and
      supervision.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3815(a) (emphasis added); Appellant’s Brief at 15-16.

Appellant also cites 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6132(a)(1)(i) (generally providing that the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole “shall have the exclusive power …

[t]o parole and re-parole”). Id. at 15.

      Likewise, the Commonwealth “concedes that this case should be

remanded for a new sentence.” Commonwealth Letter Brief at 1.

      [Appellant] was under a quasi-probationary county [intermediate
      punishment] sentence, and thus the wording of the [sentencing]
      court as to a sentence of “unserved balance” appears to have no
      support in PA caselaw, and [Appellant] should have been
      sentenced to a specific term of incarceration.

Id. at 2 (capitalization altered).

                                     -4-
J-S29008-23

      Appellant’s counsel candidly observes that he “discovered this issue

while drafting the brief, after [Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] concise

statement and [the trial court’s Rule] 1925(a) opinion had both been filed.”

Appellant’s Brief at 14 n.1 (capitalization modified); see also Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement … are waived.”);

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

Counsel correctly cites our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v.

Thorne, 276 A.3d 1192 (Pa. 2022), which reiterated that issues implicating

the legality of sentence cannot be waived.       Appellant’s Brief at 14 n.1;

Thorne, 276 A.3d at 1199-2000 (“An appellate court may address an

appellant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence even if that claim was not

preserved in the trial court; in fact, an appellate court may raise and address

a challenge to the legality of sentence sua sponte.”).

      Appellant’s claim implicates the legality of sentence. “The determination

as to whether a trial court imposed an illegal sentence is a question of law; an

appellate court’s standard of review in cases dealing with questions of law is

plenary.” Commonwealth v. White, 268 A.3d 499, 500 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(citation omitted).   Our scope of review is de novo.     Commonwealth v.

Summers, 245 A.3d 686, 697 (Pa. Super. 2021).

      In considering an appeal from a sentence imposed following the

revocation of probation:

      [O]ur review is limited to determining the validity of the probation
      revocation proceedings and the authority of the sentencing court

                                     -5-
J-S29008-23

      to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the
      time of the initial sentencing. Revocation of a probation sentence
      is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court
      and that court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the
      absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations,

quotation marks, and footnotes omitted).

      This Court has stated:

      The Commonwealth establishes a probation violation meriting
      revocation when it shows, by a preponderance of the evidence,
      that the probationer’s conduct violated the terms and conditions
      of his probation, and that probation has proven an ineffective
      rehabilitation tool incapable of deterring [the] probationer from
      future antisocial conduct.

Commonwealth v. Perreault, 930 A.2d 553, 558 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation

omitted).   Once probation has been revoked, a trial court may impose a

sentence of total confinement if any of the following conditions exist:

      (1)   the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or

      (2)   the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely that
            he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned; or

      (3)   such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority of the
            court.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c).

      Here, the trial court explained:

            Before commencing proceedings, the revocation court
      reviewed the Appellant’s file and apprised itself of the Appellant’s
      circumstance. It became clear to the revocation court that the
      Appellant was not responding to York County Adult Probation’s
      repeated attempts to reform the Appellant into a productive
      member of society.

                                     -6-
J-S29008-23

             The revocation court relied on precedent to sentence the
       Appellant to the remaining balance of his original sentence. The
       Superior Court has held that mere technical violations are not an
       abuse of discretion by the revocation court, nor is it an abuse of
       discretion for the revocation court to revoke and recommit the
       Appellant to the unserved balance for his continued drug use.
       Commonwealth v. McBride, 433 A.2d 509, 511 ([Pa. Super.]
       1981); Commonwealth v. Hamouroudis, 179 A.3d 601 (Pa.
       Super. Ct. 2017) [(unpublished memorandum).3]

Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/22, at 3-4 (footnote added, capitalization

modified).

       Upon review, we agree with the parties that the trial court imposed an

illegal sentence by sentencing Appellant to serve the balance of his sentences

without the possibility of parole.             See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3815(a) and

6132(a)(1)(i), supra. A trial court is authorized to impose only the remainder

of a sentence for a parole violation. This Court’s decisions in McBride and

Hamouroudis are inapposite. Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s judgment

of sentence and remand for resentencing.4 See Commonwealth v. Hughes,

986 A.2d 159, 160 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“An illegal sentence must be vacated.”

(citation omitted)).

____________________________________________

3 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential memorandum

decisions of the Pennsylvania Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may
be cited for their persuasive value.

4 Based on our disposition, we need not address Appellant’s remaining issue.

                                           -7-
J-S29008-23

      Judgment of sentence vacated.   Case remanded for resentencing.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 10/10/2023

                                -8-