Court Opinion

ID: 9965874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 17:09:27.872164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:49.277942
License: Public Domain

J-S05015-24

                                   2024 PA Super 91

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DAMON SHAWN WHEELER                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 624 WDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2023
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0001294-2019,
              CP-11-CR-0001296-2019, CP-11-CR-0001301-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.:                              FILED: May 3, 2024

       Damon Shawn Wheeler appeals from an order denying his motion

seeking relief in the form of direction to the Department of Corrections

concerning credit for time served in his above-captioned criminal matters.1

We affirm.

       At trial court docket number 1301-2019, a jury convicted Wheeler of

four counts of conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver and one count

of criminal use of a communication facility.2 On June 22, 2020, the trial court

____________________________________________

1 Wheeler filed a pro se appeal containing three docket numbers, in violation

of our Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969
(Pa. 2018). Because the trial court issued a single order addressing the three
docket numbers in tandem, we accept this pro se appeal for review pursuant
to Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903 and 7512(a).
J-S05015-24

sentenced him to serve an aggregate term of incarceration of six to twelve

years, with credit for time served.

       On March 15, 2022, at trial court docket number 1294-2019, Wheeler

pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture, deliver, or possess

Fentanyl.3 The trial court sentenced Wheeler to serve a term of five to ten

years’ incarceration, with credit for time served. The same day, at docket

number 1296-2019, Wheeler pled guilty to one count of possession with intent

to deliver or manufacture Fentanyl.4 Again, the trial court sentenced him to

serve a term of five to ten years of incarceration, with credit for time served.

Wheeler filed neither post-sentence motions nor direct appeals.

       On March 13, 2023, at each of the three docket numbers, Wheeler filed

a pro se “motion to modify credit order.”5 The trial court held a hearing and

____________________________________________

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903 and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

5 It is undisputed that on September 2, 2021, Wheeler filed a petition for relief

under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546,
addressing his convictions under the three docket numbers. The PCRA court
dismissed the petition on December 2, 2023, and this Court affirmed that
decision on April 4, 2024. See Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 23 WDA 2023,
____ Pa. Super. ___ (Pa. Super. filed 4/4/24) (unpublished memorandum).
Therefore, the instant motion was filed while the PCRA petition was pending.
However, as discussed infra, this motion was not cognizable under the PCRA.
Therefore, it did not run afoul of our Supreme Court’s mandate in
Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000), which prohibits the
filing of a subsequent PCRA petition while a prior PCRA petition is pending.

                                           -2-
J-S05015-24

on May 18, 2023, entered an order denying Wheeler’s motion. 6 This appeal

followed.

       In his pro se brief to this Court, Wheeler speculates that the trial court’s

order somehow removed the credit for time served provision of his sentences

at docket numbers 1294-2019 and 1296-2019, which essentially amounts to

a request for resentencing.7 See Appellant’s Brief, at v.

____________________________________________

6 The pertinent text of the trial court’s order follows:

   1. [Wheeler’s] Motion to Modify Credit Order is DENIED.

   2. The [c]ourt finds no error in the Sentencing Orders that would
      impact the Department of Corrections’ calculations of credit for
      time served.

   3. In the way of further explanation, the [c]ourt determined that at
      cases 1294-2019, count 2 and 1296-2019, count 1, the effective
      date of sentence is March 15, 2021. It appears no credit is
      available at this sentence as a result of it being credited to the
      case at 1301-2019. Based upon the [c]ourt’s review, it appears
      the Department of Corrections’ calculations are accurate.

   4. Any issues or disputes regarding credit for time served
      calculations made by the Department of Corrections must be
      raised before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Order, 5/18/23, at 1-2.

7 We observe Wheeler declares in his brief that “[a]s a pro se litigant, [his]

pleadings are held to standards less than an attorney.” Appellant’s Brief, at 2.
However, Wheeler is not entitled to any particular advantage because he lacks
legal training. “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself
in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. (citation omitted).

                                           -3-
J-S05015-24

      Before we address the merits of his claim, we first consider whether the

relief sought in Wheeler’s motion is cognizable under the PCRA or properly

brought before the trial court. This Court has explained that “[a] challenge to

the trial court’s failure to award credit for time spent in custody prior to

sentencing involves the legality of sentence and is cognizable under the

PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 595 (Pa. Super 2007)

(citation omitted).

            This Court has clarified the different claims a prisoner may
      raise regarding credit for time served and the mechanisms for
      raising such claims:

            If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an
            erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of
            Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress
            would be an original action in the Commonwealth
            Court challenging the Bureau’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.

            It [is] only when the petitioner challenges the legality
            of a trial court’s alleged failure to award credit for time
            served as required by law in imposing sentence, that
            a challenge to the sentence [is] deemed cognizable as
            a due process claim in PCRA proceedings.

Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d 876, 880 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation

omitted); see also, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761(a)(1) (“The Commonwealth Court

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings … [a]gainst

the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his

official capacity….”).

                                       -4-
J-S05015-24

      Upon review of the record, it is apparent that the trial court did award

Wheeler credit for time served. See Sentencing Orders, Docket No. 1301-

2019, 6/22/20, at 1-2; Docket No.1294-2019, 3/15/21, at 1; and Docket No.

1296-2019, 3/15/21, at 1. Our further review of the record reflects that

Wheeler is arguing that the Department of Corrections misapplied his credit

for time served. Specifically, in his motion filed with the trial court, Wheeler

presented the following as a basis for relief:

      The DOC rule and law, that is being cited to not comply with the
      [c]ourt’s 6/22/20 and 3/15/21 signed Sentencing Orders for
      Credit for Time Served in Custody applies to sentences when the
      person was on parole, probation or serving a sentence prior to the
      new charged offense resulting in a new conviction and new
      imposed sentence. That is not the case in this matter and
      therefore, the rule and law is inapplicable, but mistakenly
      being applied, and used to not comply with the judicial
      mandates, terms, conditions and the manner of the
      attached Sentencing Orders of 6/22/20 and 3/15/21.

Motion, 3/13/23, at 2, ¶ 7 (verbatim) (emphasis in original).

      Because the trial court granted credit for time served at the time it

imposed the sentences and Wheeler does not challenge the legality of an

alleged failure to award credit for time served, the claim is not cognizable

under the PCRA. Moreover, because the claim raised by Wheeler in his motion

to the trial court challenges the Department of Corrections’ application of his

credit for time served, the challenge was not properly before the trial court.

See Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 880. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order

denying relief on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. Our affirmance of the

trial court’s decision is without prejudice to Wheeler’s right to pursue his

                                      -5-
J-S05015-24

challenge to the Department of Corrections computation of credit in an original

action in the Commonwealth Court.8

       Order affirmed.

DATE: 05/03/2024

____________________________________________

8  We decline to transfer this appeal to our sister court because the
Commonwealth’s Court’s case law precludes it from employing its original
jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of this issue as presented. See
Commonwealth v. Schill, 647 A.2d 695, 696 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)
(dismissing case and stating that “although this court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate a time credit issue concerning the department, this type of case
must be addressed to our original jurisdiction … and cannot be brought in a
post-conviction relief challenge initiated in a court of common pleas.”).

                                           -6-