Court Opinion

ID: 9889864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:54.396983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.298826
License: Public Domain

J-S26026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 JAMES CRUMPLER                           :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 240 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered January 6, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0004210-2018

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                      FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

      James Crumpler appeals from the order denying his timely petition filed

pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. We

affirm.

      The pertinent facts and procedural history have been summarized as

follows:

             On April 12, 2018, around 12:00 [a.m.], [Crumpler] was
      outside of a bar located at 1322 West Olney Avenue, owned by
      Complainant, Anthony Jacquinto. [Crumpler] attempted to punch
      . . . Complainant outside of the bar, but Complainant avoided the
      punch. [Crumpler] then followed Complainant inside of the bar,
      despite attempts to keep [Crumpler] from entering.           When
      Complainant’s back was turned, [Crumpler] punched Complainant
      in the jaw, causing the Complainant to fall and hit his head on a
      metal part [of the bar]. Complainant was rendered unconscious
      after [Crumpler’s] punch to the jaw. Complainant was taken to
      the hospital where he received three staples for the lacerations to
      his head, underwent surgery to repair the mandibular fracture to
      his jaw, and his jaw had to be wired shut.
J-S26026-23

Commonwealth v. Crumpler, 245 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Super. 2020), non-

precedential decision at 1-2 (citation omitted).

      On March 29, 2019, Crumpler pled guilty to aggravated assault, graded

as a first-degree felony.   On August 22, 2019, the trial court sentenced

Crumpler to five to ten years of imprisonment, followed by a five-year

probationary term.     Following the denial of his post-sentence motion,

Crumpler filed an appeal to this Court in which he challenged the discretionary

aspects of his sentence.    Finding no merit to this claim, we affirmed his

judgment of sentence on December 23, 2020. Id.

      On November 8, 2021, Crumpler filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, and

the PCRA court appointed counsel. On June 20, 2022, PCRA counsel filed an

amended petition. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss.

On December 8, 2022, the PCRA court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 907 notice of its

intent to dismiss Crumpler’s petition without a hearing. Crumpler did not file

a response.    By order entered January 6, 2023, the PCRA court denied

Crumpler’s amended petition. Crumpler appealed. The PCRA court did not

require Pa.R.A.P. 1925 compliance.

      On appeal, Crumpler claims that the PCRA court erred in denying his

claim that he “was sentenced greater than the [l]awful maximum in

connection with a guilty plea on August 22, 2019.”      Crumpler’s Brief at 2

(unnumbered).

      This Court’s standard of review for an order dismissing a PCRA petition

calls for us to “determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported

                                     -2-
J-S26026-23

by the evidence and free of legal error. The PCRA court’s factual findings will

not be disturbed unless there is no support for the findings in the certified

record.” Commonwealth v. Webb, 236 A.3d 1170, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citing Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191–92 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

            The PCRA court has discretion to dismiss a petition without
      a hearing when the court is satisfied that there are no genuine
      issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled
      to post-conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose
      would be served by further proceedings. [See Pa.R.Crim.P.
      909(B)(2).] To obtain reversal of a PCRA court’s decision to
      dismiss a petition without a hearing, an appellant must show that
      he raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor,
      would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise
      abused its discretion in denying a hearing.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 750 (Pa. 2014) (citations

omitted).

      Our review of the record refutes Crumpler’s claim that his sentence for

aggravated assault exceeded the applicable statutory maximum. Graded as

a first-degree felony, aggravated assault carries a statutory maximum of

twenty years of imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(1). Crumpler’s sentence

of five to ten years of incarceration to be followed by a five-year probationary

term does not exceed the twenty-year maximum.

      A review of Crumpler’s argument in support of his sentencing claim,

actually consists of a challenge to the discretionary aspects—not the legality—

of his sentence. As the PCRA court stated in its Rule 907 notice:

           [Crumpler] asserts that trial counsel failed to argue that his
      sentence was illegal because it was greater than the lawful
      maximum. The statutory maximum for [Crumpler’s] first-degree-

                                     -3-
J-S26026-23

       felony conviction is 20 years. [Crumpler’s] argument is instead a
       relitigation of the discretionary aspects of his sentence, which trial
       counsel preserved, appellate counsel argued, and the Superior
       court reviewed. The Superior Court has already determined that
       [the trial court] did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
       [Crumpler] to what is already a mitigated sentence, considering
       [Crumpler’s] sentencing guidelines.

Rule 907 Notice, 12/8/22, at 2.1 Thus, Crumpler’s true claim on appeal has

been previously litigated under the PCRA. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(a).

       Order affirmed.

Date: October 11, 2023

____________________________________________

1 Although the PCRA court discussed reasons for denying Crumpler’s petition

in its Rule 907 notice, it did not file a Rule 1925(a) opinion. The PCRA court,
the Honorable Kai N. Scott, was no longer sitting in the court of common pleas,
because she joined the federal judiciary. The lack of an opinion does not
impede appellate review.

                                           -4-
J-S26026-23

              -5-