Court Opinion

ID: 9939573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:11:09.865494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:25.126880
License: Public Domain

J-A21038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 ANTHONY JENNINGS                         :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 2382 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered August 23, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0506581-2004

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                   FILED FEBRUARY 08, 2024

      Appellant, Anthony Jennings, appeals from the trial court’s August 23,

2022 order modifying the conditions of his probation. After careful review, we

vacate and remand for further proceedings.

      On October 28, 2004, Appellant was convicted, following a non-jury

trial, of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and other, related

offenses.   Appellant’s convictions stemmed from his sexually assaulting a

minor, female victim when she was between the ages of 9 and 11 years old.

On April 24, 2007, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 8 to 16

years’ incarceration, followed by 10 years’ probation. He filed a timely direct

appeal, and this Court affirmed his judgment of sentence on July 28, 2008.

See Commonwealth v. Jennings, 959 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2008)

(unpublished memorandum).
J-A21038-23

       Appellant served his maximum term of incarceration, and was released

from custody on June 16, 2022, to begin serving his term of probation. See

Appellant’s Brief at 4; Commonwealth’s Brief at 5. On August 5, 2022, the

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) requested a hearing

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(d) for the court “to consider imposing special

probation conditions for sex offenders in addition to the general conditions

that [Appellant] had previously acknowledged.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 5

(citation to the record omitted).         Specifically, “[t]he requested conditions

included requirements like participating in sex offender treatment, abstaining

from any contact with minors, and abstaining from the possession or use of

graphic sexual materials.” Id. (citation to the record omitted).

       The trial court conducted a hearing on the PBPP’s request on August 23,

2022. There,

       it was elicited that[,] after [Appellant] was convicted of rape of a
       ten-year-old minor victim, [Appellant] served the maximum of his
       eight-to-sixteen-year incarceration term and was [then] only two
       months into the probation period. The PBPP’s agent presented
       four pages of Standard Special and Optional Special Conditions of
       Probation in attempt to add/modify the conditions [of] the original
       sentencing order.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 2/6/23, at 2. Ultimately, the court entered an order

on August 23, 2022, granting PBPP’s motion to modify Appellant’s conditions

of probation.1
____________________________________________

1 Upon our initial review of Appellant’s appeal, we observed that there was no

indication on the trial court’s docket that the August 23, 2022 order modifying
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-A21038-23

       On September 1, 2022, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion asking

the court to reconsider its imposition of additional/modified conditions of his

probation.     The court denied that motion on September 7, 2022.            On

September 14, 2022, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant also

complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal.2 The court filed a Rule 1925(a)

opinion on February 6, 2023.

____________________________________________

conditions of probation was entered by the trial court. Accordingly, on
December 5, 2022, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal
should not be quashed as having been taken from a purported order that was
not entered upon the appropriate docket of the lower court. See Pa.R.A.P.
301(a)(1) (“Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, no
order of a court shall be appealable until it has been entered upon the
appropriate docket in the trial court.”). On December 6, 2022, the trial court
entered an “Order Correcting Docket,” which corrected the trial court’s docket
to reflect that the “Order Granting Motion To Modify Conditions Of Probation”
was to be entered on August 23, 2022. On December 6, 2022, the Office of
Judicial Records in the trial court filed the “Order Granting Motion To Modify
Conditions Of Probation,” which is dated August 23, 2022. On December 8,
2022, Appellant filed a response to this Court’s rule to show cause order,
explaining this procedural history. On February 9, 2023, we entered an order
informing the parties that the issue raised in the rule to show cause order will
be referred to the merits panel. We now conclude that this appeal may
proceed, as the August 23, 2022 order has been entered on the trial court’s
docket.
2 We note that the trial court issued its Rule 1925(b) order on September 21,

2022, giving Appellant 21 days to file his concise statement. On September
30, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to file his Rule
1925(b) statement. It does not appear that the court ruled on that motion.
On October 20, 2022, Appellant filed his concise statement. Although
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement is technically untimely, as the court did
not grant his motion for an extension of time to file it, we need not remand
under Rule 1925(c)(3), as the trial court addressed Appellant’s claims in its
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A21038-23

       Herein, Appellant states two issues for our review:

       A. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by increasing the
       terms of Appellant’s probation where the court failed to meet the
       requirements of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771 and otherwise lacked authority
       to modify Appellant’s sentence more than 30 days after
       sentencing?

       B. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by delegating
       responsibility for setting the specific terms of Appellant’s
       probation to the Parole Board?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

       Appellant first argues the trial court erred by adding new conditions to

his probation without complying with 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771.           Specifically, he

contends that the August 23, 2022 hearing conducted on the PBPP’s request

to modify his probation was inadequate to meet the requirements of that

statute.    The trial court and Commonwealth both candidly agree with

Appellant. See TCO at 5; Commonwealth’s Brief at 9-10. For the reasons

that follow, so do we.

       Where, as here, the expiration of the 30-day modification period set

forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 has passed, a trial court may only modify a

defendant’s terms of probation pursuant to section 9771.         That provisions

states, in pertinent part:

       (a) General Rule.-- The court has inherent power to at any time
       terminate continued supervision, lessen the conditions upon which
       an order of probation has been imposed or increase the conditions
____________________________________________

Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 433
(Pa. Super. 2009) (“[I]f there has been an untimely filing, this Court may
decide the appeal on the merits if the trial court had adequate opportunity to
prepare an opinion addressing the issues being raised on appeal.”).

                                           -4-
J-A21038-23

     under which an order of probation has been imposed upon a
     finding that a person presents an identifiable threat to public
     safety.

     (b) Revocation.-- The court may increase the conditions ... of
     probation upon proof of the violation of specified conditions of the
     probation.

                                     ***

     (d) Hearing required.-- There shall be no revocation or increase
     of conditions of sentence under this section except after a hearing
     at which the court shall consider the record of the sentencing
     proceeding together with evidence of the conduct of the defendant
     while on probation.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9771.

     Here, the trial court concedes in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that the

hearing it held in this case did not meet the requirements of section 9771,

explaining:

     The legal basis for the PBPP to seek to increase or modify the
     terms of Appellant’s probation would be for [the] PBPP to present
     evidence that … Appellant violated the specific conditions of his
     probation, or that Appellant presents an identifiable threat to
     public safety, or present evidence of the conduct of Appellant
     while on probation. See 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 9771. The PBPP did not
     present, or offer to present, any such evidence.

TCO at 5. The Commonwealth agrees with the trial court, recognizing that,
     [a]lthough the [trial] court held the required hearing in this case,
     it failed to elicit any factual findings from [Appellant’s] probation
     officer about his conduct while on probation that would have
     permitted [the court] to impose additional probationary
     conditions. For this reason, the sentencing order should be
     vacated and the case remanded to the [trial] court for an
     additional hearing about [Appellant’s] compliance with probation.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 8.

                                     -5-
J-A21038-23

       We agree with the parties and the court that the hearing in this case

was inadequate to satisfy the requirements of section 9771. Accordingly, we

vacate the August 23, 2022 order modifying the conditions of Appellant’s

probation, and remand for further proceedings.3

       Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 2/8/2024

____________________________________________

3 Given our disposition, we need not address Appellant’s second issue on
appeal.

                                           -6-