Com. v. Miller, C. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-S06035-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    v.
    CODY ROBERT MILLER
    Appellant               No. 398 EDA 2016
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 29, 2015
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division
    at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001172-2015
    CP-45-CR-0001177-2015
    BEFORE: MOULTON, RANSOM, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:                     FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017
    Appellant Cody Robert Miller appeals from a judgment of sentence of
    twelve to forty-eight months’ imprisonment imposed in the Monroe County
    Court of Common Pleas (“Monroe County court”) for retail theft 1 and driving
    under the influence (“DUI”).2       Appellant argues that the Monroe County
    court erred by failing to award him credit for three of the seven months he
    was incarcerated prior to sentencing. The Commonwealth agrees that relief
    is due. We vacate and remand for resentencing.
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1).
    2
    75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(1)(i).
    J-S06035-17
    On November 25, 2014, Appellant was sentenced in the Northampton
    County Court of Common Pleas to twelve months’ probation for possession
    of drug paraphernalia.
    On May 20, 2015, Appellant was arrested in Monroe County in the
    cases presently on appeal, which the Monroe County court docketed at Nos.
    1172-2015 and 1177-2015. Because Appellant was unable to post bail, he
    was incarcerated in Monroe County. On August 26, 2015, Appellant pleaded
    guilty to retail theft at No. 1172-2015 and DUI at No. 1177-2015.
    On August 27, 2015, law enforcement officials transported Appellant to
    Northampton County on a probation detainer issued in the Northampton
    County case. Appellant remained incarcerated in Northampton County until
    December 29, 2015, when he returned to the Monroe County court for
    sentencing.
    On December 29, 2015, the Monroe County court ordered Appellant to
    serve an aggregate state sentence of twelve to forty-eight months’
    imprisonment.3     The   court gave   Appellant credit for    his period of
    incarceration in Monroe County—May 20, 2015 to August 27, 2015—but did
    not award credit for his period of incarceration in Northampton County.
    3
    In No. 1172-2015, the court sentenced Appellant to nine to forty-two
    months’ imprisonment for retail theft.  In No. 1177-2015, the court
    sentenced Appellant to a consecutive term of three to six months’
    imprisonment for DUI.
    -2-
    J-S06035-17
    On January 6, 2016, Appellant filed post-sentence motions asserting
    that his sentence was excessive. He did not object to the lack of credit for
    time served in Northampton County.          On January 7, 2016, the Monroe
    County court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motions.
    Appellant’s    probation   violation   hearing    in   Northampton   County
    apparently took place on January 8, 2016.4            It appears that Appellant’s
    probation officer informed the court about Appellant’s Monroe County
    sentence and asked that “we close this case out so [Appellant] can serve his
    state sentence.”    N.T., Probation Violation Hr’g, 1/8/16, at 3.      It further
    appears that the Northampton County court agreed to “close this case”
    because Appellant “has other issues in SCI to deal with.” 
    Id. at 4.
    On February 3, 2016, Appellant filed timely appeals in both Monroe
    County cases.      This Court docketed both appeals at the same caption
    number.     Both Appellant and the Monroe County court complied with
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
    Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
    Where upon review of the record from another county it is
    learned that [A]ppellant received no time credit for time
    spent in that county on a probation violation, is not
    [Appellant] entitled to credit on the sentence served in the
    home county that formed the basis for the probation
    violation?
    4
    The certified record from Monroe County does not include the transcript of
    the Northampton County hearing. An alleged hearing transcript is appended
    to Appellant’s brief.
    -3-
    J-S06035-17
    Appellant’s Brief, at 6. In response to Appellant’s brief, the Commonwealth
    filed a letter stating that it agreed with Appellant’s position.
    Appellant challenges the Monroe County court’s refusal to award credit
    for time served in Northampton County. This is a question of law, because it
    implicates the legality of Appellant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Aikens,
    
    139 A.3d 244
    , 245 (Pa. Super. 2016).         Our standard of review over such
    questions is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. 
    Id. Although Appellant
    did not raise this argument in his post-sentence motions, we will
    review this issue because challenges to the legality of sentence are non-
    waivable.   Commonwealth v. Dinoia, 
    801 A.2d 1254
    , 1257 (Pa. Super.
    2002).
    Section 9760 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code governs credit for time
    served and provides in pertinent part:
    After reviewing the information . . . the court shall give
    credit as follows:
    (1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum
    term shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in
    custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a
    prison sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on
    which such a charge is based. Credit shall include credit
    for time spent in custody prior to trial, during trial, pending
    sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.
    42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1).
    Our analysis of section 9760(1) in Commonwealth v. Smith, 
    853 A.2d 1020
    (Pa. Super. 2004), is controlling. The defendant in Smith was
    sentenced to probation on a firearms charge.         
    Id. at 1023.
      Three years
    -4-
    J-S06035-17
    later, he was arrested in a second case. 
    Id. He was
    released on bail in the
    second case but was incarcerated on a probation detainer issued in the first
    case. 
    Id. He remained
    in jail on the detainer for approximately one year
    and then proceeded to trial in the second case.      
    Id. The jury
    found him
    guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. 
    Id. at 1022.
       Subsequently, the court closed the probation violation in the first
    case without imposing further penalty, but it refused to credit the time
    served on the probation detainer against the defendant’s sentence in the
    second case. 
    Id. at 1022-23.
    On appeal, applying section 9760(1), this Court held that the
    defendant was entitled to credit in the second case for time served on the
    detainer issued in the first case. 
    Id. at 1025.
    We further reasoned that the
    principle of “equitable crediting of pre-trial incarceration,” which our
    Supreme Court delineated with respect to parole in Martin v. Pa. Bd. of
    Prob. and Parole, 
    840 A.2d 299
    , 308–09 (Pa. 2003), applies with equal
    force to probation.    
    Smith, 853 A.2d at 1026
    .        We stated that where
    “pretrial incarceration is attributable to both [a] probation detainer and . . .
    new criminal charges, it must be attributed to either [the] sentence under
    the new criminal charges or to [the] sentence imposed for violation of
    probation.”    
    Id. Because the
    court closed the defendant’s probation
    violation proceedings without imposing penalty, the time he served in
    -5-
    J-S06035-17
    pretrial detention on the probation detainer in the first case had to be
    credited against the sentence imposed in the second case. 
    Id. Pursuant to
    Smith, if the Northampton County case was closed
    without further penalty, the Monroe County court is required to award
    Appellant credit for time served on the Northampton County detainer.
    Appellant was on probation in Northampton County at the time of his arrest
    in Monroe County. Following this arrest, Appellant was incarcerated both for
    failing to post bail in Monroe County and as a result of the Northampton
    County detainer. Thus, his pretrial incarceration was attributable to both his
    Monroe County arrest and his Northampton County detainer.         The Monroe
    County court sentenced him to imprisonment but only awarded him credit
    for three of his seven months of pretrial incarceration.
    It appears, however, that the Northampton County court later closed
    Appellant’s probation case without penalty.    If so, he would be entitled to
    receive credit in Monroe County for all pretrial incarceration, including time
    served in Northampton County, because Appellant’s lone prison sentence
    was in Monroe County. See 
    Smith, 853 A.2d at 1022-23
    , 1026.
    Conceivably, the Monroe County court declined to credit Appellant for
    time   served   in   Northampton   County   because    it   assumed   that   the
    Northampton County court would sentence Appellant to imprisonment for his
    probation violation and credit Appellant’s incarceration in Northampton
    County against his Northampton County sentence. Although this assumption
    -6-
    J-S06035-17
    was reasonable, it now appears that the Northampton County court took a
    different course of action.
    To confirm what action the Northampton County court took, we direct
    the Monroe County court to hold a hearing to determine the disposition of
    the Northampton County case. If the Northampton County case was closed
    without further penalty, we direct the Monroe County court to award
    Appellant credit for all time served between the date of arrest in Monroe
    County, May 20, 2015, and the date of sentencing, December 29, 2015.
    Judgment of sentence vacated.       Case remanded for sentencing
    proceedings in accordance with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 2/28/2017
    -7-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Com. v. Miller, C. No. 398 EDA 2016

Filed Date: 2/28/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/28/2017