Com. v. Thomas, M. ( 2019 )

J-S80034-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARQUIS THOMAS :
:
Appellant : No. 3155 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 18, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003032-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and NICHOLS, J.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH
11, 2019
I agree with my learned colleagues that Appellant is not entitled to relief
on his sufficiency and weight of the evidence claims, and that the trial court
erred by sentencing Appellant to life imprisonment for his conviction of
conspiracy to commit murder. However, I do not believe that a remand for
resentencing is necessary.
It is well-established that where a case requires a correction of
sentence, this Court has the option to remand it for resentencing or amend it
directly, as long as amendment does not result in an increased term for which
the person is being sentenced. Commonwealth v. Martinez, 153 A.3d
1025, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Klein, 795 A.2d 424, 430-
31 (Pa.Super. 2002); see also Commonwealth’s brief at 18. The sentence
J-S80034-18
for conspiracy to commit murder runs concurrently with the life sentence
imposed at the first-degree murder conviction. Hence, the aggregate
sentence would not be changed by our amendment of Appellant’s sentence to
conform to statutory requirements. As we would not upset the overall
sentencing scheme by correcting Appellant’s sentence, a remand is a waste of
judicial resources. Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 570 (Pa.Super.
2006) (If our decision does not alter the overall scheme, there is no need for
remand.). Accordingly, I would forego remand and amend the sentence of
conspiracy to commit murder from life to the lawful maximum sentence of
twenty to forty years of imprisonment. 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(c).
-2-