Com. v. Guilford, T.
Com. v. Guilford, T. No. 1534 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- On Nov. 26, 2014 Philadelphia police observed a two‑door car suspected of casing a jewelry store; the vehicle fled from officers and crashed after striking parked cars. Appellant Thomas Guildford was the rear‑seat passenger and fled on foot; officers captured him in the street.
- A loaded Colt semiautomatic handgun was observed and seized from the rear passenger‑side floorboard where Guildford had been seated; a BB gun was recovered from the front passenger floorboard; Muslim garb and rubber gloves were also recovered from the vehicle.
- Guildford, the vehicle owner, was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and illegally carrying a firearm in public; he was convicted after a bench trial on Dec. 9, 2015.
- On Apr. 22, 2016 the court sentenced Guildford to 5–10 years for illegal possession, plus probationary terms; Guildford filed a motion for reconsideration (raising sufficiency, weight, and excessive sentence) and then timely appealed.
- On appeal Guildford’s brief raised three issues: Rule 600 dismissal, suppression of arrest/evidence, and credit for time served; his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, however, raised only sufficiency, weight, and excessive sentence. The Commonwealth conceded a remand would be acceptable to correct credit for time served.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Guildford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether denial of Rule 600 motion to dismiss was erroneous | Waived — Guildford failed to preserve Rule 600 in Rule 1925(b) so appellate review barred | Trial court erred in denying Rule 600 dismissal | Waived for appellate review; not addressed on merits |
| 2) Whether denial of motion to suppress arrest/evidence was erroneous | Waived — suppression issue not preserved in Rule 1925(b) | Trial court erred in denying suppression motion | Waived for appellate review; not addressed on merits |
| 3) Whether Guildford is entitled to credit for time served | Credit request was made at sentencing and Commonwealth would not oppose remand to reflect credit | Guildford sought credit for time served (alleged omission in sentencing order) | Claim affects legality of sentence; trial court’s sentencing order vacated and case remanded for entry of order reflecting applicable credit for time served |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 917 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2007) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (same—failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 A.2d 34 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Rule 1925(b) helps trial courts focus on issues to be raised on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1992) (failure to award credit for time served implicates legality of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 852 A.2d 392 (Pa. Super. 2004) (attack on failure to give credit for time served cannot be waived because it challenges sentence legality)