Court Opinion

ID: 9409003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 16:08:50.993312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.258029
License: Public Domain

J-S22037-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CHASE SHOMO JOHNSON                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 802 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 23, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
                 Criminal Division at CP-02-CR-0013051-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                                FILED: JULY 14, 2023

        Chase Shomo Johnson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count each of persons not to

possess firearms, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(a)(1), and firearms not to be carried

without a license, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). We agree with the parties that

Appellant’s sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to address

Appellant’s eligibility under the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI)

Act.1 Thus, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

        Appellant’s convictions arise from an incident that occurred on

November 5, 2019, when Appellant fled in a vehicle from police and parole

agents. See N.T. (Plea Hearing), 5/23/22, at 10-12. When police stopped

the vehicle, they discovered Appellant with a loaded gun in plain view. Id. at

____________________________________________

1   61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501-4512.
J-S22037-23

11.   Appellant was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior

convictions. Id. at 12.

       On May 23, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea. The trial court

accepted Appellant’s plea and immediately sentenced him to an aggregate 6

– 12 years in prison, followed by two years of probation. Appellant timely

filed a post-sentence motion to modify sentence on June 2, 2022. The trial

court denied Appellant’s motion a week later. Appellant timely appealed.2

       Appellant presents two questions for review:

       I.   Whether the sum and substance of [Appellant’s] sentence is
            illegal where the Trial Court failed to determine, on the record
            at the time of sentencing, whether [Appellant] was eligible for
            a RRRI sentence, in violation of 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a)?

       II. Whether the Trial Court abused its sentencing discretion by
           failing to apply all relevant sentencing criteria, including the
           protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and
           [Appellant’s] character and rehabilitative needs, as required
           by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (footnote omitted).

       Appellant claims, for the first time on appeal,3 that the trial court

imposed an illegal sentence because it never determined Appellant’s RRRI

____________________________________________

2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.

3 Appellant correctly states that although this is the first time that he raises
this claim, it cannot be waived.         Appellant’s Brief at 5 n.1 (citing
Commonwealth v. Dickson, 918 A.2d 95, 99 (Pa. 2007) (if a claim “clearly
implicates the legality of sentence, whether it was properly preserved below
is of no moment, as a challenge to the legality of sentence cannot be
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S22037-23

eligibility.   See id. at 16-19; see also id. at 18 n.3 (correctly noting

Appellant’s “RRRI status was never addressed by the parties at the … guilty

plea/sentencing hearing, nor was it addressed in the subsequently filed written

sentencing order.”). Appellant emphasizes that the RRRI Act mandates: “At

the time of sentencing, the court shall make a determination whether the

defendant is an eligible offender.” Id. at 18 (quoting 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a)

(Appellant’s emphasis)). Appellant directs our attention to Commonwealth

v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 871 (Pa. Super. 2010), holding that “where the trial

court fails to make a statutorily required determination regarding a

defendant’s eligibility for an RRRI minimum sentence as required, the

sentence is illegal.” Appellant’s Brief at 18-19. Appellant asks that we vacate

his illegal sentence and remand for resentencing. Id. at 19.

       The Commonwealth agrees that “because there was no inquiry made

into RRRI eligibility, there is a basis for remand of this case for resentencing.”

Commonwealth Brief at 9; see also id. at 7 (stating “neither the trial court,

nor the prosecutor, nor defense counsel made inquiry regarding RRRI.”).

       “We apply a de novo standard of review and plenary scope of review to

questions of legality of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Risoldi, 276 A.3d 279,

281 (Pa. Super. 2022). The Sentencing Code provides:

       The court shall determine if the defendant is eligible for a
       recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum sentence under 61
____________________________________________

waived.”)); see also Commonwealth Brief at 7 (agreeing legality of sentence
claims cannot be waived).

                                           -3-
J-S22037-23

        Pa.C.S. Ch. 45 (relating to recidivism risk reduction incentive). If
        the defendant is eligible, the court shall impose a recidivism risk
        reduction incentive minimum sentence in addition to a minimum
        sentence and maximum sentence except, if the defendant was
        previously sentenced to two or more recidivism risk reduction
        incentive minimum sentences, the court shall have the discretion
        to impose a sentence with no recidivism risk reduction incentive
        minimum.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1) (emphasis added). “This statute makes clear that

sentencing courts are required to make an assessment as to an offender’s

eligibility for a sentence under the RRRI Act, and lack discretion to forego

imposing one where an offender is eligible.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy,

249 A.3d 903, 912 (Pa. 2021) (emphasis added).

        In sum, Appellant’s sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to

determine Appellant’s RRRI eligibility. See id.; Robinson, supra. Although

the court may ultimately determine Appellant is not an “eligible offender,” it

is required to make that determination when it imposes a sentence. See 61

Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1).            Accordingly, we vacate

Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for the trial court to determine

Appellant’s RRRI eligibility.4

        Judgment of sentence vacated.          Case remanded for resentencing in

accordance with this Memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

4   Our disposition renders Appellant’s second issue moot.

                                           -4-
J-S22037-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/14/2023

                          -5-