Court Opinion

ID: 9390812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:08:36.116802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.229389
License: Public Domain

J-A02013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 XAVIER PHILLIP WYKOFF                  :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 162 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 25, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-25-CR-0000638-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 XAVIER PHILLIP WYKOFF                  :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 163 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 25, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-25-CR-0001848-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                      FILED: April 28, 2023

     Appellant, Xavier Phillip Wykoff, appeals from the judgments of

sentence entered October 25, 2021, as made final by the denial of his

post-sentence motions on January 7, 2022. We affirm Appellant’s convictions

together with the penalties of total confinement imposed by the trial court.

We vacate the imposition of a one-year term of reentry supervision at trial

court docket number 638 of 2021.
J-A02013-23

      The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of this case

as follows:

       [Appellant’s first set of] convictions arose from [his] actions on
       January 27, 2021[,] at the 400 block of East 14th Street, in the
       City of Erie, Erie County, Pennsylvania[.] … According to the
       criminal complaint, at the time of arrest, Appellant, a
       paraplegic, while riding as a passenger in a vehicle[,] possessed
       the loaded Glock, an additional 35-round magazine,
       $2,225[.00] in various denominations consistent with narcotics
       distribution, and a clear knotted sandwich baggie containing 38
       blue pills of suspected Oxycodone. The gun and baggie with
       the pills inside were located in Appellant's underwear. A
       subsequent search of the vehicle pursuant to a warrant led to
       the recovery of other drugs and drug-related contraband.

       [On April 29, 2021, at Erie County docket no. 638 of 2021,
       Appellant pled guilty as charged to Count One-Firearms Not To
       Be Carried Without A License (a loaded Glock 17), a third degree
       felony, and to Count Two-Possession With Intent to Deliver
       (Oxycodone), a felony.]

       As part of the plea, Appellant agreed to forfeit the $2,225.00 in
       cash, and the Commonwealth agreed it would not object to the
       imposition of concurrent sentences.

                                     ***

       At the conclusion of the April 29, 2021 plea hearing, the [trial
       c]ourt informed Appellant [that] his sentencing hearing was
       scheduled for July 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the same court room,
       and instructed Appellant he was to return for sentencing at that
       time.

                                     ***

       [Appellant’s] second set of convictions arose from Appellant’s
       activities on July 2, 2021, just four [] days before the July 6,
       2021 sentencing hearing on Appellant’s convictions at docket
       no. 638 of 2021. According to the criminal complaint, on July
       2, 2021, Appellant was speeding through a residential area in
       the City of Erie[, Pennsylvania]. When the police signaled for
       Appellant to stop, Appellant pulled over, but then sped off
       again. A high-speed chase ensued, with Appellant's vehicle

                                     -2-
J-A02013-23

      reaching speeds of up to 50 to 70 miles per hour in a posted 25
      mile-per-hour zone. During the chase, Appellant ran through
      two red traffic signals at the intersections of East 21st and Ash
      Streets and East 21[st] and Parade Streets. According to the
      [c]omplaint, only after a malfunction of a vehicle modification
      for Appellant's disability did Appellant finally stop. At the time
      of the traffic stop, Appellant possessed 45 blue Fentanyl pills
      hidden in a sock, [four] grams of suspected marijuana,
      $1,280.00 in cash and a fully loaded firearm later found to be
      reported as stolen.

      [On October 21, 2021, at docket no. 1848 of 2021, Appellant
      pled guilty to fleeing or attempting to elude [a] police officer
      and possession with the intent to deliver (fentanyl).] Pursuant
      to the plea agreement at [docket] no. 1848 of 2021, the
      Commonwealth agreed to nolle pross the numerous remaining
      charges. Also, Appellant and the Commonwealth stipulated
      [that] the quantity of Fentanyl . . . was 4.84 grams; the
      [o]ffense [g]ravity [s]core was [10]; Appellant would pay lab
      fees of $176.00 to the Pennsylvania State Police; Appellant
      would forfeit the $1,280.00 in cash; and Appellant would pay
      costs.

                                     ***

      Due to the events of July 2, 2021 which led to the additional
      charges at docket no. 1848 of 2021, the parties agreed to
      continue the sentencing hearing originally scheduled for July 6,
      2021 at docket no. 638 of 2021. Also, on July 13, 2021 the
      [trial c]ourt revoked Appellant's bond at docket no. 638 of 2021
      upon motion of the Commonwealth. A combined sentencing
      hearing at both dockets was scheduled for October 25, 2021.
      Additional background concerning the events of July 2, 2021
      (including the flight from the police and ensuing high-speed
      chase), as related by Assistant District Attorney Maskrey [“ADA
      Maskrey”)] at the combined sentencing hearing held on October
      25, 2021, [as follows]:

          [ADA Maskrey]: ... [O]n [July 2, 2021], just days before
          [Appellant] was supposed to be sentenced at docket [no.]
          638 of 2021, he decides to flee from the officer during a
          multiple traffic stop, going over 70 miles per hour through
          the City of Erie, [Pennsylvania,] running stop signs as well
          as red lights.

                                    -3-
J-A02013-23

              He eventually pulls over. And after he pulls over, he is
              found to be in possession of another $1,280[.00] in cash
              and 45 of those pills - - the blue fentanyl pills - - that came
              back to 4.84 grams of fentanyl.

              And when the officer asked him why he would run in that
              situation, he tells the officer, because I [am] going to jail
              on Tuesday, bro. That [is] his response.

              Obviously, he has zero regard for the court system or the
              police officers in our [c]ounty, and the jobs they have to
              do. Because of what he did in this case, fleeing just days
              before [July 6, 2021,] the original scheduled sentencing [at
              docket no. 638 of 2021,] and saying he [is] going to jail.
              And it [is] beyond clear that he was continuing to sell
              fentanyl on our streets while awaiting sentencing at []
              docket [no. 638 of 2021], as noticed by having 45 more
              fentanyl pills and another $1,280.00 in cash. So, complete
              disregard for the courts.

              And I understand his situation, being handicapped, and
              what he has to go through with that, Judge. But that does
              not excuse any of his conduct in these cases.

         [N.T.] Sentencing Hearing, 10/25/21, [at] 13 (emphasis
         [omitted]).

         On October 25, 2021, Appellant was sentenced at both dockets
         to an aggregate of 60 months to 120 months ([five] to 10 years)
         of incarceration as follows.

                                           ***

         At Erie County docket no. 638 of 2021, Appellant was sentenced
         to an aggregate of 24 months to 48 months ([two] to [four]
         years) of incarceration:

              Count One: Firearms Not to Be Carried Without A License[1]
              - 24 months to 48 months of incarceration.

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106 (a).

                                           -4-
J-A02013-23

              Count Two: Possession With Intent to Deliver
              (Oxycodone)[2] — [three] months to [six] months of
              incarceration, concurrent with Count One.

         The sentences at Counts One and Two were at the low end of
         the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. The [trial
         c]ourt imposed the sentences to run concurrently, consistent
         with the stipulation at the plea hearing. Appellant was directed
         to pay lab fees and costs. … The Court ordered one-year
         mandatory reentry supervision in accordance with 61 Pa.C.S.A.
         § 6137.2.

         At Erie County docket no. 1848 of 2021, Appellant was
         sentenced to an aggregate of 36 months to 72 months ([three]
         years to [six] years) of incarceration as follows:

              Count One: Fleeing Or Attempting to Elude Police Officer[3]
              — [three] months to [six] months of incarceration.

              Count Five: Possession With Intent To Deliver (Fentanyl)[4]
              — 36 months to 72 months of incarceration, concurrent
              with Count One.

         The sentences at Counts One and Five were at the low end of
         the standard range of the guidelines, and the sentence at Count
         Five was imposed concurrent with Count One at [docket] no.
         1848 of 2021. The [trial c]ourt specified the sentences at this
         docket were to run consecutive to the sentence imposed at
         Count One at docket [no.] 638 of 2021, for a total aggregate of
         [five] to 10 years of incarceration. The [trial c]ourt directed
         Appellant to pay lab fees and costs. At [docket no. 1848 of
         2021] the sentencing order also reads the [trial c]ourt ordered
         another period of one-year mandatory reentry supervision in
         accordance with 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6137.2.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/24/22, at 1-6 (internal citations, unnecessary

capitalization and footnotes omitted) (footnotes added).

____________________________________________

2   35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

3   75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3733(a).

4   35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

                                           -5-
J-A02013-23

       On November 1, 2021, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel, which the trial court granted that same day. Thereafter,

Appellant’s new counsel filed timely post-sentence motions at each trial court

docket. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motions on January

7, 2022. This timely appeal followed.5

       Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

        1. Did the trial court impose a manifestly excessive sentence,
           in light of Appellant’s paraplegia and attendant medical
           needs/safety concerns, where other sentencing options
           would still have ensured the protection of the public, held
           Appellant accountable, and provided for Appellant’s
           rehabilitative needs?

        2. Did the trial court err[] when it ordered Appellant to serve
           one-year of [reentry] supervision at each [trial court]
           docket?

Appellant’s Brief at 10.

       In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court imposed an

“excessive and unreasonable” sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 20. Before we

may conduct a merits analysis of Appellant's discretionary sentencing

challenge, we must determine whether he properly invoked this Court's

jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149, 1159-1160

(Pa. Super. 2017) (“Only if the appeal satisfies [a four-part test] may we

proceed to decide the substantive merits of [an a]ppellant's claim.”)

____________________________________________

5By per curiam order entered on March 4, 2022, this Court consolidated the
appeals sua sponte.

                                           -6-
J-A02013-23

       We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether
       appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902
       and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at
       sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence,
       see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal
       defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
       substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
       appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [see] 42 Pa.C.S.A.
       § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations

omitted).

      Instantly, Appellant filed timely notices of appeal, properly preserved

his claims by filing post-sentence motions at each trial court docket, and

included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. See Appellant's Brief at 18-21.

Thus, we turn to whether he raised a substantial question.       A substantial

question is raised by demonstrating that the trial court's actions were

inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to a fundamental norm

underlying the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d

592, 603 (Pa. Super. 2016). This issue is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Id. This Court will not look beyond the statement of questions involved and

the prefatory Rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial

question exists. Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 468 (Pa. Super.

2018) (citation omitted).     Moreover, for purposes of determining what

constitutes a substantial question, “we do not accept bald assertions of

sentencing errors,” but rather require an appellant to “articulat[e] the way in

which the court's actions violated the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v.

Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1252 (Pa. 2006).

                                     -7-
J-A02013-23

      Upon review, we conclude that Appellant failed to articulate a substantial

question within his Rule 2119(f) statement. Rather, Appellant references each

conviction at each docket, conceding that, in each instance, the trial court

imposed a sentence within the standard range. Appellant’s Brief at 18-20.

Appellant nonetheless argues that “the length of the aggregate sentence is

excessive and unreasonable, as is the place of confinement and/or the

imposition of total confinement in light of Appellant’s paraplegia and

associated medical risks.” Id. at 20. At no point does Appellant ever state,

with specificity, a colorable claim alleging that his sentence is inconsistent with

a provision of the Sentencing Code or a fundamental norm underlying the

sentencing process. See generally id. at 18-20; see also Commonwealth

v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 79-80 (Pa. Super. 2021) (explaining that the Rule

2119(f) statement fails to raise a substantial question where it “fails to explain

what portion of the Sentencing Code, if any, with which his sentence was

inconsistent or how it ran contrary to fundamental sentencing norms.”).

      Ostensibly, Appellant's Rule 2119(f) statement implies that the trial

court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, disabilities, or

rehabilitation needs in imposing Appellant's sentence. See Appellant's Brief

at 20 (claiming that, in light of Appellant’s physical condition, this Court should

“vacate [his] sentence and remand to the trial court with instructions” that

“application of the [sentencing guidelines] is clearly unreasonable”). Our case

law is clear, however, that claims of inadequate consideration of mitigating

factors do not raise a substantial question. See Crawford, 257 A.3d at 79;

                                       -8-
J-A02013-23

see also Commonwealth v. Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2022) (noting

that the “weight accorded to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors

presented to the sentencing court is within the [sentencing] court's exclusive

domain.”). As Appellant did not raise a substantial question, we will not review

the merits of his discretionary sentencing claim.

       Next, Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence.6      Appellant’s

Brief at 26-30. Specifically, Appellant asserts that “the trial court lacked the

authority to impose one-year of [reentry] supervision at each of the [trial

court] dockets” because “the sentences only exceeded the minimum of four

years when aggregated.” Id. at 27. Appellant requests this Court to “vacate

the imposition of the one-year of [reentry] supervision at [d]ocket [n]o. 638

of 2021 as an illegal sentence.” Id. at 30.

        The relevant standard and scope of review are as follows:

        [T]he determination as to whether the trial court imposed an
        illegal sentence is a question of law; our standard of review in

____________________________________________

6  Herein, Appellant argues that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence
when it ordered one-year reentry supervision at each trial court docket.
Appellant did not raise this issue in his post-sentence motions. In general,
issues not properly raised and preserved before the trial court “are waived
and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). “A
challenge that implicates the legality of an appellant's sentence, however, is
an exception to this issue preservation requirement.” Commonwealth v.
Thorne, 276 A.3d 1192, 1196 (Pa. 2022). “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 [even] raise and address such an issue sua sponte.”                       Id.,
Commonwealth v. Hill, 238 A.3d 399, 407 (Pa. 2020). Hence, because
Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence, his failure to raise the claim
by way of a post-sentence motion does not preclude our review.

                                           -9-
J-A02013-23

       cases dealing with questions of law is plenary. This case will
       also necessarily call upon us to engage in statutory
       construction, which similarly presents a pure question of law
       and also implicates the legality of [the] sentence. Thus, our
       standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is
       plenary.

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 220 A.3d 582, 585 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

     Section 6137.2 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

       § 6137.2. Reentry supervision

           (a) General rule.—This section applies to persons
           committed to the department with an aggregate minimum
           sentence of total confinement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)
           (relating to sentence of total confinement) of 4 years or
           more. Regardless of the sentence imposed, this section
           does not apply to persons sentenced to death, life
           imprisonment, persons otherwise ineligible for parole or
           persons subject to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.5 (relating to
           mandatory period of probation for certain sexual
           offenders).

           (b) Reentry supervision.—Any person under subsection (a)
           shall be sentenced to a period of reentry supervision of 12
           months consecutive to and in addition to any other lawful
           sentence issued by the court.

61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6137.2(a)-(b).

     The Sentencing Guidelines also outline the criteria for imposing reentry

supervision. Section 303.12 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

       (f) Reentry Programs

                                     ***

           (2) State Reentry Supervision (as provided in 61 Pa.C.S.
           § 6137.2)

                                    - 10 -
J-A02013-23

                  (i) Requirement that applies to persons committed
                  to the Department of Corrections with an aggregate
                  minimum sentence of total confinement of four years
                  or more.

                  (ii) At the time of sentencing, a period of reentry
                  supervision of 12 months shall be imposed
                  consecutive to and in addition to any other lawful
                  sentence issued by the court.

                  (iii) The Court may impose the period of reentry
                  supervision required in addition to the maximum
                  sentence permitted for the offense for which the
                  person was convicted.

                  (iv) Persons who have been granted any period of
                  parole during the same period of incarceration shall
                  be deemed to have served the reentry supervision
                  requirement.

204 Pa. Code § 303.12(f)(2)(i)-(iv). Therefore, pursuant to the plain language

of both Section 6137.2(a) and Section 303.12(f)(2)(i)-(iv), if an individual is

sentenced to total confinement and his aggregate minimum sentence is for a

period of at least four years, a sentencing court is required to impose a period

of one-year reentry supervision. See Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514, 517 (Pa.

2013) (“When interpreting an unambiguous statute, such as the one at issue,

the plain meaning of the statute must control.”).

      In this instance, at docket no. 638 of 2021, the trial court sentenced

Appellant to an aggregate term of two to four years’ incarceration. In addition,

at docket no. 1848 of 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate term of three to six years’ incarceration. Hence, neither docket,

alone, reflected an aggregate minimum sentence of four years. Thus, the trial

                                     - 11 -
J-A02013-23

court lacked authority to order a one-year period of reentry supervision at

both docket no. 638 of 2021 and docket no. 1848 of 2021.

      Importantly, the trial court agreed with Appellant’s contention that the

imposition of reentry supervision at both dockets was improper. In its 1925(a)

Opinion, the trial court stated:

       At sentencing on October 25, 2021, the following exchange
       occurred between the Probation/Parole Officer and the [trial
       c]ourt:

            [Probation/Parole Officer]:. ... And the last thing I would
            say is because the minimum is more than four years, we
            would ask for that one year [reentry] supervision.

            The [trial court]: Right. He would have to.

       [N.T.] Sentencing Hearing, 10/25/21, [at] 19.

       The record reflects the Probation/Parole Officer requested one
       year of [reentry] supervision (rather than two years of [reentry]
       supervision) pursuant to 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 6137.2(a), since the
       combined aggregate minimum at both dockets exceeded the
       four-year minimum requirement of total confinement under 42
       Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b).

       It was the [trial c]ourt's intention to impose a
       combined/aggregate minimum sentence at both dockets of five
       years. This is apparent by the [trial c]ourt's directives: 1) the
       sentence at [docket] no. 638 of 2021 was to aggregate with the
       sentence imposed at [d]ocket [n]o. 1848 of 2021 for a total
       aggregate sentence of [five] to 10 years of incarceration, and
       2) the sentences at [docket] no. 1848 of 2021 were to run
       consecutive to the sentence imposed at Count One at docket
       [no.] 638 of 2021, for a total aggregate of [five] to 10 years of
       incarceration. See Sentencing Order of October 25, 2021 at
       Erie County Docket No. 1848-2021; [see N.T.] Sentencing
       Hearing, 10/25/21, [at] 16-17. At sentencing, the Court
       stated:

            [The trial court]: ... [docket no.] 1848 of 2021, as a whole,
            will run consecutive to [docket no.] 638 of 2021. And any

                                     - 12 -
J-A02013-23

              special conditions that were applied to [docket no.] 638 [of
              2021] also are attached to [docket no.] 1848 [of 2021].

              This is an aggregate sentence of five to ten years. I think
              it [is] justified, concerning the fact of this case, and despite
              the problems the [Appellant] has had[.]

          [N.T.] Sentencing Hearing, 10/25/21, [at] 16-17.

          Through inadvertent error, each sentencing order directs one
          year of [reentry] supervision. The record should be corrected
          to reflect the period of [reentry] supervision only applies to
          docket no. 1848 of 2021, because the Court directed the
          sentence at [docket] no. 1848 of 2021 is consecutive to docket
          no. 638 of 2021, bringing the aggregate minimum sentence of
          total confinement to five years.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/24/22, at 13-14 (unnecessary capitulation omitted).

      Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court imposed an

illegal sentence under Section 6137.2. We therefore vacate that aspect of

Appellant’s judgment of sentence that imposes a one-year term of reentry

supervision at trial court docket no. 638 of 2021. In all other respects, we

affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                        - 13 -
J-A02013-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2023

                          - 14 -