Court Opinion

ID: 9405995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 16:10:10.880665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.080400
License: Public Domain

J-S26026-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    HARRY EDWARD HOSLER                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 99 MDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 13, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-54-CR-0002137-2016

BEFORE:      KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: JUNE 29, 2023

        I concur with the Majority but write separately to address a few other

points. First, I agree with the Majority that Appellant could have been more

specific in his points of error. Nonetheless, his points of error are discernable.

His main complaint on appeal is that the trial court acted prematurely by

revoking his probation before he was convicted on the new charges.             He

claims:

        I found a few matters seemingly judged in a premature manner
        based upon irrelevant opinion. At the time of the revocation
        hearing[,] I was still, very much, fighting my case to which
        spawned my revocation. . . . ] [The trial court revoked] my
        probation solely because I am a “drug dealer.” None of my priors
        support such an outlandish statement nor [were] my open
        charges settled.

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26026-22

Appellant’s Pro Se 1925(b) Statement, 3/24/23, at 2 (unpaginated) (emphasis

added).

      Although Appellant’s point is well taken, his argument fails. We have

often cautioned trial judges who revoke probation based solely on new charges

before the resolution of the new charges.        If a defendant is ultimately

acquitted of the new charges, then the revocation sentence cannot stand.

That is exactly what happened in Commonwealth v. Giliam, 233 A.3d 863

(Pa. Super. 2020), where the trial court had revoked probation based on new

charges of which the defendant was ultimately acquitted. This Court held that

because the defendant's violation of probation was based solely on allegations

of new criminal charges for which he was later acquitted, ultimately, no

violation of probation occurred.     Consequently, we concluded that his

probation revocation sentence was void. Id. at 868.      In Gilliam we noted

that “[t]he instant case exemplifies why, as a practical matter, the appellate

courts have cautioned against proceeding with a probation violation hearing

before the trial on new charges where, as here, the new charges are the sole

basis for the alleged probation violation.” Id. at 869 (emphasis added).

      Nevertheless, Appellant's argument here fails for two reasons.       Even

though the better practice may have been to wait until resolution of the new

charges, the trial court was permitted to proceed with the probation revocation

hearing before the hearing on the new charges; in other words, the court was

not required to wait on the revocation hearing as Appellant suggests.

                                     -2-
J-S26026-22

Moreover, here, Appellant ultimately plead guilty to the new charges, so his

challenge here is moot.

      Second, I agree with the Majority that Appellant waived any argument

with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. But I note that if it

were properly preserved, this challenge would also fail.    Appellant claims a

full revocation of probation and imposition of jail time is not warranted

because he was almost done serving his original 18-month sentence when he

committed the new charges. “Also I feel a full revocation when, by the time,

17 ½ months of an 18 month probation to be turned to a 12 to 24 month

sentence is a bit excessive without a supporting verdict.” Appellant’s Pro Se

1925 (b) Statement, 3/24/23, at 2 (unpaginated).

      Ultimately, there was a supporting conviction on the new charges. And,

regardless of how far along he was, Appellant was still on probation at the

time he reoffended.    He knew he needed to be “extra careful” during his

probation time, and he was not.    Thus, he is subject to penalties both for his

new crime and the crime of violating his probation. Trial courts do not give

special consideration to whether a defendant is “almost done” serving

probation when he reoffends.

      Thus, I concur with the Majority that Appellant’s probation revocation

sentence should be affirmed.

                                     -3-