Com. v. Jefferson, S., Com. v. Jefferson, S. No. 2764 EDA 2015

On Sept. 10, 2012, an altercation occurred at Crystal Roame’s home on North Fairhill St., Philadelphia; Suilamon Jefferson struck two victims in the head with a metal pipe and his brother Jahad struck another with a bat.
Police detained Suilamon and Jahad at the scene; victims identified them and received medical treatment (head lacerations, fractured arm).
Suilamon waived a jury trial; at a bench waiver trial on May 23, 2013 he was convicted of aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of a crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person at two docket numbers.
He failed to appear for the original sentencing date; after arrest, he was sentenced on Aug. 31, 2015 to concurrent 5–10 year terms for aggravated assault and conspiracy (each docket), and probation terms for the misdemeanor convictions ordered concurrent to each other but consecutive to incarceration.
On appeal Jefferson raised three legality-of-sentence issues: (1) sentenced on charges he was not convicted of (docket-number confusion); (2) simple assault should merge into aggravated assault for sentencing; (3) probation terms for simple assault and REAP exceeded statutory maximums.
The Superior Court affirmed convictions, vacated the simple assault sentence (merger), rejected the docket-number/duration challenge, and remanded for resentencing because the probation for simple assault was ordered consecutive to incarceration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was Jefferson sentenced on charges he was not convicted of due to docket-number confusion?	Jefferson: judge referenced co-defendant’s docket number and omitted his docket numbers at sentencing, so sentence may be on wrong charges.	Commonwealth: written sentencing order and docket show sentencing on correct charges; oral misstatements not part of judgment.	Court held sentencing was on correct docket numbers; oral errors not incorporated into written judgment, so sentence legal on this ground.
2. Should simple assault merge into aggravated assault for sentencing?	Jefferson: simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault and must merge.	Commonwealth: argued sentencing separate counts permissible (implicit).	Court held simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault here and must merge; simple assault sentence vacated.
3. Do the probationary terms for simple assault and REAP exceed statutory maximums?	Jefferson: sentenced to three years’ probation on each M2 offense which exceeds maximum.	Commonwealth: sentencing order actually shows two years’ probation; statute on imprisonment limits does not forbid probation.	Court held claim meritless—probation terms were two years and within statutory limits.

Commonwealth v. Foster, 17 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2011) (legality-of-sentence claims are not waivable)
Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate review of sentencing legality)
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for legality of sentence)
Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466 (Pa. Super. 2011) (written sentencing order controls over oral statements)
Commonwealth ex rel. Woods v. Howard, 378 A.2d 370 (Pa. Super. 1977) (review records to determine if defendant was sentenced on charges of conviction)
Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 420 A.2d 674 (Pa. Super. 1980) (simple assault is included in aggravated assault; merger required when arising from single act)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 462 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. 1983) (when simple assault probation runs concurrent with aggravated assault imprisonment, remand may not be required)