Court Opinion

ID: 9961284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:24:38.651818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:31.376106
License: Public Domain

J-S28025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    MICHAEL STOFFER                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 28 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 5, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-CR-0008971-2020

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                           FILED: April 18, 2024

       Appellant, Michael Stoffer, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on October 5, 2021, following his bench trial convictions for simple

assault and theft by unlawful taking.1 After careful consideration, we affirm

Appellant’s judgment of sentence but remand this case to allow the trial court

to correct a clerical error in the sentencing order.

       We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows.   On October 5, 2021, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the

aforementioned charges. Following the verdict, Appellant waived his right to

a pre-sentence investigation report and proceeded directly to sentencing. See

N.T., 10/5/2021, at 23. On the record in open court, the trial court sentenced

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a) and 3921(a), respectively.
J-S28025-23

to “a period of probation of one year” and “to have no violent contact with the

victim.”   Id. at 25-26.      Appellant was further sentenced to “complete the

Batterer’s Intervention Program and [] undergo random drug screens.” Id.

at 26. On the same day, on October 5, 2021, the trial court entered a written

sentencing order reflecting the aforementioned sentence.           However, the

written sentencing order also stated:

       This sentence shall commence on 10/05/2021

       To be confined for a minimum period of 396 [d]ays and a
       maximum period of 396 [d]ays at [the] Allegheny County Jail.

                               *               *     *

       The defendant shall receive credit for time served [from
       September 5, 2020, through October 5, 2021, or] 396 [days].

Sentencing Order, 10/5/2021, at *1.

       Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on October 15,

2021. On November 30, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant relief.           This

timely appeal resulted.2

       On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

       1. Does the written sentencing order docketed in Appellant’s case
          [] contain a clear clerical error, in that it ordered Appellant to
          serve a [flat] term of 396 days of imprisonment plus one year
          of probation, whereas the notes of testimony from Appellant’s
____________________________________________

2  Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 30, 2021. Sometime after
the entry of the order that denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, the
original trial court judge retired and the case was reassigned. On January 20,
2022, the new trial judge ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant
complied timely. The trial court entered an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) on January 10, 2023.

                                           -2-
J-S28025-23

         October 5, 2021 sentencing hearing clearly and unambiguously
         indicate that he was ordered to serve a term of probation alone
         (with the remedy for that error being an order correcting the
         written sentencing order by striking the confinement
         language)?

      2. Was the written sentencing order in Appellant’s case enacted
         improperly, in that the probation that was ordered at his
         sentencing hearing was changed to a sentence of confinement
         plus probation, with that occurring absent Appellant having
         notice of the proposed modification and a fair opportunity to be
         heard regarding it (with the failure to provide notice and a
         hearing [] violat[ing] 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5505 and the due
         process clauses of the state and federal constitutions)?

      3. Does the written sentencing order in Appellant’s case impose
         an illegal sentence upon him, in that its structure (that he serve
         a [flat] term of 396 [] days of confinement) violates 42
         Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9756(b)(1)?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

      Initially, we reject the Commonwealth’s suggestion that Appellant

waived all of the issues presented above by failing to raise them in his

post-sentence motion or in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement.                See

Commonwealth’s Brief at 7-11. All of Appellant’s issues implicate the illegality

of his sentence. Our Supreme Court has held:

      Generally speaking, issues not raised in the lower court are waived
      and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The issue
      preservation requirement ensures that the trial court that initially
      hears a dispute has had an opportunity to consider the issue,
      which in turn advances the orderly and efficient use of our judicial
      resources, and provides fairness to the parties.          However,
      challenges to the legality of sentences are an exception to this
      general issue-preservation rule. Stated succinctly, an appellate
      court can address an appellant's challenge to the legality of his
      sentence even if that issue was not preserved in the trial court;
      indeed, an appellate court may raise and address such an issue
      sua sponte.

                                      -3-
J-S28025-23

Commonwealth v. Hill, 238 A.3d 399, 407–408 (Pa. 2020) (internal

citations, quotations, and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v.

Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[A] claim that a flat

sentence should have instead had minimum and maximum terms goes to the

legality of the sentence, and such issues are non-waivable.”); see also

Commonwealth v. Warunek, 279 A.3d 52, 54 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted) (“A challenge to the legality of the sentence can never be waived and

may be raised by this Court sua sponte.”).

      Based on the foregoing, we sua sponte address Appellant’s contentions

herein. Appellant’s appellate issues are interrelated, so we will examine them

together. See Appellant’s Brief at 10 (“In fact, all three claims relate[] to the

docketing of [the] written sentencing order that deviated, in a material way

and to [Appellant’s] detriment, from what was announced at the sentencing

hearing.”).   Appellant contends that he “was ordered to serve a term of

probation at his sentencing hearing, but his sentence was deemed to be

jailtime plus probation in his written sentencing order.” Id. at 11. Appellant

argues “he was not given the opportunity to be heard when the trial court

opted to increase his sentence.” Id. at 12.    Finally, Appellant suggests “the

confinement portion of the [written] sentence imposed was and is [] illegal,

given its structure (it ordered him to serve a flat sentence of 396 days of

imprisonment).” Id. at 44.

      A challenge to the legality of sentence raises a question of law for which

our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See

                                      -4-
J-S28025-23

Commonwealth v. Renninger, 269 A.3d 548, 567 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en

banc) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 302 A.3d 95 (Pa. 2023). This Court

has determined that if the trial court imposes a clear and unambiguous

punishment at a sentencing hearing, then the sentence imposed in open court

controls   and   a   subsequent,   nonconforming       written    sentencing      order

constitutes a clear clerical error that is subject to correction.                  See

Commonwealth v. Bartic, 303 A.3d 124, 129 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2023) (cleaned

up); compare Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548 (Pa. Super.

2019) (A written and signed sentencing order fixes the sentence to be

implemented only where the sentencing transcript is ambiguous and the

ambiguity in the transcript must be resolved by reference to the signed,

written order). When “the written sentencing order includes a statement that

was not made by the trial court at the sentencing hearing[,]” this Court has

determined “the trial court [has] modif[ied] its judgment of sentence imposed

at the time of sentencing when it file[s] its [subsequent] written sentencing

order” containing different terms. Renninger, 269 A.3d at 568; see also

Commonwealth v. Reed, 386 A.2d 41, 42 (Pa. Super. 1978) (“A court is

empowered to modify a sentence ... only if it notifies the defendant and the

district attorney of its intention to do so [or the modified order,] therefore, is

without effect.”). In this case, there is no dispute that the modified order was

entered without notice to Appellant.

      Furthermore,     upon   review,    the   trial   court     here   clearly    and

unambiguously declared at Appellant’s sentencing hearing that it intended

                                        -5-
J-S28025-23

Appellant to receive a one-year sentence of probation.        The court further

ordered no contact with the victim, completion of a Batterer’s Intervention

Program, and random drug screens. The sentencing court made no mention

of imprisonment or credit for time-served at the sentencing hearing. As such,

the written sentencing order, which awarded credit for time-served and

directed Appellant to serve an additional term of imprisonment, varied from

an unambiguous oral pronouncement in open court and, thus, contained a

“clear clerical error” that is subject to correction.3 See Bartic, 303 A.3d at

129. In such instances, we have determined that “a remand to correct this

clear clerical error is necessary” and Appellant is not subject to resentencing.4

See id.

____________________________________________

3  The Commonwealth concedes that “there is a basis for this Court to vacate
the sentencing order dated October 5, 2021, and remand for additional
proceedings.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 16; id. at 11 (“The written sentencing
order may erroneously contain terms different than those stated at the
sentencing hearing.”) (complete capitalization omitted).

4  We note that in its written sentencing order, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to a flat sentence of 396 days of imprisonment with credit for
time-served. That decision resulted in an illegal sentence. Pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 9756, “[i]n imposing a sentence of total confinement […t]he court
shall impose a minimum sentence of confinement which shall not exceed one-
half of the maximum sentence imposed.”       “The plain language of Section
9756 of the Sentencing Code directs the trial court to specify minimum and
maximum periods imposing imprisonment.” Postie, 110 A.3d at 1044 (A “flat
sentence of four months is illegal under Section 9756[.]”).              The
Commonwealth acknowledges that “[p]ursuant to [] statutory and case law,
the written sentencing order may impose an illegal sentence upon Appellant
because it does not specify a minimum or maximum sentence.”
Commonwealth’s Brief at 17 (complete capitalization omitted).

                                           -6-
J-S28025-23

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Case remanded for correction of clerical

error. Jurisdiction relinquished.

 4/18/2024

                                    -7-