Court Opinion

ID: 9928814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:10:56.208952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:48.937925
License: Public Domain

J-S41007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  RONALD LEE BARKER                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 363 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 25, 2023
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-16-CR-0000435-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                       FILED: January 26, 2024

       Ronald Lee Barker appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in

the Clarion County Court of Common Pleas on January 25, 2023, following his

guilty plea to possession of child pornography. Barker is attempting to reverse

his designation as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). We affirm.

       On May 4, 2022, Barker entered a guilty plea to one count of possession

of child pornography. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the plea was open subject

to the condition that the minimum sentence could not exceed thirty-five

months’ incarceration. Sentencing was deferred for an assessment by the

Pennsylvania      Sexual     Offenders     Assessment   Board   (“SOAB”)   for   a

recommendation of whether Barker fits the criteria of an SVP.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41007-23

      On December 9, 2022, the trial court conducted an SVP hearing. The

Commonwealth presented the report and detailed testimony of Brenda A.

Manno, MSW, a licensed clinical social worker and member of the SOAB. Ms.

Manno concluded that Barker meets the criteria to be classified as an SVP

under Pennsylvania law.

      Barker presented a letter from Robert M. Wettstein, MD, a board-

certified psychiatrist, who stated it was his opinion that Barker cannot be

determined to be an SVP under Pennsylvania law. Dr. Wettstein did not testify

at the hearing. To conclude the hearing, Barker testified on his own behalf.

After taking the matter under advisement, the court issued an order a month

later, classifying Barker as an SVP.

      On January 25, 2023, the trial court sentenced Barker to sixty months’

probation with restrictive conditions, to include not less than thirty-five

months on house arrest with GPS monitoring. Barker filed a post-sentence

motion, which the trial court denied on February 22, 2023. On March 24, 2023,

Barker filed the instant notice of appeal.

      This Court issued a rule to show cause why this appeal should not be

quashed as untimely filed, noting that the docket indicated that Barker filed

his post-sentence motion more than ten days after the entry of judgment of

sentence, and untimely post-sentence motions do not toll the 30-day appeal

period. See Order, 5/1/2023. In his response to our rule to show cause,

Barker’s counsel indicated that he electronically filed the post-sentence motion

                                       -2-
J-S41007-23

on Monday, February 6, 2023, at 5:13 p.m., and that the filing was accepted

by the clerk of courts on February 7, 2023, at 8:37 a.m. Counsel insisted that

even though the motion was not accepted by the clerk of courts until the next

day, the motion was nevertheless filed within the 10-day window, and

therefore Barker’s appeal was timely. See Letter in Response to Rule to Show

Cause, filed May 5, 2023. After consideration of counsel’s response, our Court

discharged the show-cause order, and advised counsel that the merits panel

may revisit the issue.

      Accordingly, as a prefatory matter, we must address our jurisdiction to

entertain this appeal because an untimely appeal divests this Court of

jurisdiction. See Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 725 (Pa.

Super. 2001). We may address questions of our jurisdiction sua sponte. See

id.

      “Absent extraordinary circumstances, an appellate court lacks the power

to enlarge or extend the time provided by statute for taking an appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583, 587 (Pa. 2014). “Thus, an

appellant’s failure to appeal timely an order generally divests the appellate

court of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Generally, a post-sentence motion must be filed within ten days after

the imposition of sentence, and to be timely, an appeal must be filed within

thirty days of the entry of the order deciding the motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P.

720(A). An untimely post-sentence motion does not toll the time to file an

                                      -3-
J-S41007-23

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613, 618 (Pa. Super. 2004)

(en banc).

      Here, the court sentenced Barker on January 25, 2023. The last day to

file a timely post-sentence motion was Monday, February 6, 2023, as the tenth

day after sentencing fell on a Saturday. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (for

computations of time, if the last day of any such period shall fall on a Saturday,

Sunday, or any legal holiday, such day shall be omitted from the

computation); see also Pa.R.A.P. 107 (stating that 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 shall be

applicable to the Rules of Appellate Procedure); and see Commonwealth v.

Fill, 202 A.3d 133, 138 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applying 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908). Barker

filed a post-sentence motion that was received on February 6, 2023, but was

not time-stamped and docketed until February 7, 2023.

      It is arguable whether Barker’s post-sentence motion was filed within

the 10-day timeframe. In any event, we find any untimeliness of the instant

appeal may be excused due to a breakdown in the processes of the court. A

“breakdown” has been found where the trial court or the clerk of courts

departed from the obligations specified in current Rules 704 and 720 of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, which can be summarized as

follows:

      Rule 704(C)(3)(a) states that, at the time of sentencing, “[t]he
      judge shall determine on the record that the defendant has been
      advised ... of the right to file a post-sentence motion and to
      appeal, ... [and] of the time within which the defendant must
      exercise those rights.” The Comment to this Rule provides that
      “[t]his rule is intended to promote ... fair sentencing procedures

                                      -4-
J-S41007-23

       ... by requiring that the defendant be fully informed of his or her
       post-sentence rights and the procedural requirements which must
       be met to preserve those rights.” Furthermore, Rule
       720(B)(4)(a) states that “[a]n order denying a post-sentence
       motion, whether issued by the judge ... or entered by the clerk of
       courts ..., shall include notice to the defendant of […] the right to
       appeal and the time limits in which the appeal must be filed.” [The
       Comment to this Rule provides that] “[t]his requirement ensures
       adequate notice to the ... [appellant], which is important given
       the potential time lapse between the notice provided at sentencing
       and the resolution of the post-sentence motion.”

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493, 498-99 (Pa. Super. 2007)

(citations and some internal quotation marks omitted). Each rule serves a

distinct purpose, and the language used evinces the mandatory nature of the

separate notifications. See id. at 499.

       Here, the trial court complied with Rule 704 at sentencing by notifying

Barker of the time in which to file his post-sentence motion and appeal.

However, the trial court completely failed to comply with the dictates of Rule

720. In the order denying Barker’s post-sentence motion, the trial court did

not notify Barker that, due to the late filing of his post-sentence motion, he

had to file an appeal within thirty days of the imposition of sentence.1 Had the

trial court done so, Barker could have filed a timely appeal within the few days

remaining in the original appeal period.

____________________________________________

1 In fact, the order simply denies the post-sentence motion, without giving
any reason for doing so, and without giving any notification of any appellate
rights.

                                           -5-
J-S41007-23

      The trial court's failure to comply with Rule 720 constitutes a breakdown

that excuses any potential untimeliness of Barker’s notice of appeal. While

Barker did receive proper notification of his post-sentence and appellate rights

at the time of sentencing, partial compliance with the rules is simply not

sufficient. See Patterson, 940 A.2d at 499. Accordingly, we will proceed to

review the merits of the instant appeal.

      On appeal, Barker argues the trial court erred in finding that he is an

SVP. Specifically, Barker contends the Commonwealth presented insufficient

evidence to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was an SVP.

      Our standard and scope of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence relating to a trial court’s SVP designation is as follows:

      In order to affirm an SVP designation, we, as a reviewing court,
      must be able to conclude that the fact-finder found clear and
      convincing evidence that the individual is an SVP. As with any
      sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view all evidence and
      reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
      Commonwealth. We will reverse a trial court’s determination of
      SVP status only if the Commonwealth has not presented clear and
      convincing evidence that each element of the statute has been
      satisfied.

Commonwealth v. Hollingshead, 111 A.3d 186, 189 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(citation and brackets omitted). “The clear and convincing standard means

the evidence was so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing that the trier of fact

could come to a clear conviction, without hesitating, concerning the facts at

issue.” Commonwealth v. Feucht, 955 A.2d 377, 380 (Pa. Super. 2008)

(citation omitted).

                                      -6-
J-S41007-23

      An SVP is defined as “an individual who committed a sexually violent

offense” and “who is determined to be a sexually violent predator ... due to a

mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely to

engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12.

      Section 9799.24(a) of SORNA provides that “a court shall order an

individual convicted of a sexually violent offense to be assessed by the

[SOAB].” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.24(a); see also id. § 9799.12 (defining

sexually violent offense). Following the entry of such an order, the SOAB is

responsible for conducting an assessment to determine whether the individual

should be classified as an SVP. Id. § 9799.24(b). The assessment must

consider the following factors:

      whether the instant offense involved multiple victims; whether the
      defendant exceeded the means necessary to achieve the offense;
      the nature of the sexual contact with the victim(s); the
      defendant’s relationship with the victim(s); the victim(s)’ age(s);
      whether the instant offense included a display of unusual cruelty
      by the defendant during the commission of the offense; the
      victim(s)’ mental capacity(ies); the defendant’s prior criminal
      record; whether the defendant completed any prior sentence(s);
      whether the defendant participated in available programs for
      sexual offenders; the defendant’s age; the defendant’s use of
      illegal drugs; whether the defendant suffers from a mental illness,
      mental     disability,  or    mental     abnormality;    behavioral
      characteristics that contribute to the defendant’s conduct; and any
      other factor reasonably related to the defendant’s risk of
      reoffending.

Hollingshead, 111 A.3d at 190 (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

9799.24(b)(1)-(4). After the SOAB completes its assessment, the trial court

holds a hearing to “determine whether the Commonwealth has proved by clear

                                     -7-
J-S41007-23

and convincing evidence that the individual is [an SVP].” Id. at §

9799.24(e)(3).

      Here, the trial court determined the Commonwealth proved by clear and

convincing evidence that Barker met the statutory criteria to be classified as

an SVP pursuant to Pennsylvania law. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/23, at 3.

Our review of the record agrees with this observation.

      At the hearing, Ms. Manno testified that Barker met the criteria of an

SVP and offered details of her report. See N.T., 12/9/22, at 5-33. The

Commonwealth offered into evidence the SVP Assessment completed by Ms.

Manno in its entirety. Pursuant to Section § 9799.58(b), Ms. Manno considered

all fourteen factors in her assessment and concluded Barker met the criteria

for an SVP under Pennsylvania law.

      On the other hand, Barker offered a one-page letter from Dr. Wettstein

that briefly stated his psychiatric opinion that Barker cannot be determined to

be an SVP. Dr. Wettstein stated he reviewed some unspecified legal

documents in connection with Barker’s case. However, unlike Ms. Manno’s

assessment, Dr. Wettstein did not explain whether he evaluated the

unspecified information in connection with the applicable legal standard.

      Upon review, we conclude the evidence presented at the SVP hearing,

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, supports the trial

court’s finding that Barker should be classified as an SVP. See Hollingshead,

111 A.3d at 189. As the trial court observed, Ms. Manno satisfactorily

                                     -8-
J-S41007-23

explained why Barker met the criteria for an SVP. The court found Ms. Manno’s

assessment, and corresponding testimony, to be reliable and compelling. See

Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/23, at 3. On the other hand, the court did not find

Dr. Wettstein’s letter compelling, as it lacked any specificity. See id. Our

review confirms that Ms. Manno’s testimony, which was credited by the trial

court, was sufficient to support her conclusion. Accordingly, we cannot grant

Barker relief on his sole issue and affirm the judgment of sentence.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

  1/26/2024

                                    -9-