Court Opinion

ID: 9554632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 16:10:58.400316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:58.449057
License: Public Domain

J-S21019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SCOTT DAVID JOHNSON                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 300 MDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0000624-1986

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                             FILED: AUGUST 9, 2023

       Appellant Scott David Johnson appeals pro se from the order denying

his petition for habeas corpus relief. Appellant argues that the trial court erred

in concluding that Appellant’s 1988 sentence was unambiguous and that it

abused its discretion by refusing to direct the Department of Corrections

(DOC) to release him from custody. We affirm.

       We adopt the trial court’s summary of the relevant facts and procedural

history of this matter. See Trial Ct. Op., 2/28/23, at 1-3 (unpaginated); see

also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 1552 MDA 2019, 2020 WL 1304320 (Pa.

Super. filed Mar. 18, 2020) (unpublished mem.).           Briefly, Appellant was

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21019-23

convicted and sentenced for robbery and other offenses in 1988.1 On October

3, 2022, Appellant filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Therein, Appellant argued that his sentence was ambiguous because it was

unclear whether the sentencing court intended to impose a consecutive or

concurrent sentence at count two.                Appellant also claimed that DOC

erroneously concluded that his sentence at count two was consecutive, rather

than concurrent, which resulted in the DOC improperly calculating his

maximum sentence.         Ultimately, the trial court denied Appellant’s petition,

noting that any challenges to the DOC’s calculation must be raised in a writ of

mandamus in an original action before the Commonwealth Court.

       Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement.      The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing

Appellant’s claim.

       On appeal, the Appellant raises the following issue:

       Did the habeas court abuse its discretion when it refused to direct
       the DOC to discharge Appellant based on the ambiguity reflected
       in the sentencing hearing transcript as it related to the concurrent
       sentence the trial court imposed for count 2, that did not clearly
       evidence the trial judge’s intent to impose count 2 as a
       consecutive term to counts 5, 9, and 10 as the DOC had
       interpreted, when the November 4, 1987 sentencing order
       expressly stated only count 4 was to be served consecutive to
       count 2 period, and the record evidenced that the maximum

____________________________________________

1 We note that although Appellant refers to 1987 as the date of sentencing in

his brief, the record reflects that the trial court ultimately vacated two of
Appellant’s convictions and resentenced Appellant to the same aggregate term
of imprisonment in 1988. See Johnson, 2020 WL 1304320 at *1.

                                           -2-
J-S21019-23

      sentence had lawfully expired upon clarification of the sentencing
      transcript as a matter of law?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (formatting altered).

      Following our review of the parties’ briefs, relevant case law, and the

trial court’s analysis, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See

Trial Ct. Op. at 1-3 (unpaginated). Specifically, we agree with the trial court

that Appellant’s sentence is not ambiguous and that, to the extent Appellant

intends to challenge the DOC’s calculation of Appellant’s maximum sentence,

that claim must be raised in a mandamus action before the Commonwealth

Court. See id. at 3; see also McCray v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 872

A.2d 1127, 1131 (Pa. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant is not

entitled to relief, and we affirm the order denying Appellant’s petition.

      Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2023

                                      -3-