Com. v. Jones, V., 112 MDA 2016

In August 2014, Vernadine Jones falsely testified at a preliminary hearing that her then‑husband threatened her with a firearm; he was jailed one month after that testimony.
On November 24, 2015, Jones pled guilty to false reports and received 12 months intermediate punishment, including 3 months house arrest with electronic monitoring.
While represented by counsel, Jones faxed a pro se letter to the trial court (Dec. 2, 2015) seeking modification of her sentence; counsel later filed a counseled post‑sentence motion nunc pro tunc (Dec. 14, 2015).
The trial court denied the post‑sentence motion on the merits (Dec. 21, 2015) and included an erroneous notice stating Jones had 30 days to appeal from that order.
Jones filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 19, 2016; the Commonwealth argued the appeal was untimely because the counseled post‑sentence motion was not timely granted nunc pro tunc and thus did not toll the appeal period.
The Superior Court found the notice of appeal was facially untimely but excused the timeliness defect due to a breakdown in the court’s operation (misstatement in the post‑sentence order) and proceeded to address the sentencing claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Jurisdiction to hear appeal	Jones contends her post‑sentence claims should be considered because she filed a post‑sentence motion and appealed within the period stated by the court	Commonwealth contends counseled post‑sentence motion was untimely (no express nunc pro tunc grant) so appeal period expired and Superior Court lacks jurisdiction	Court: Counseled motion was untimely and notice of appeal was facially late, but court excused lateness due to court's misstatement in its order (breakdown in process) and reached merits
Discretionary aspects of sentencing (challenge to house arrest and monitoring)	Jones argues sentence was excessive, court failed to weigh her character, remorse, rehabilitation prospects, lack of priors, and negative collateral effects (e.g., adoption)	Commonwealth argues sentencing claim was waived because not raised at sentencing or in a timely post‑sentence motion; even preserved, mere claim of inadequate consideration does not present a substantial question	Court: Claim waived by untimely post‑sentence motion; alternatively, even if preserved, no substantial question shown; affirmed sentence

Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explaining requirements for requesting and granting nunc pro tunc relief to toll appeal period)
Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (timeliness rules for post‑sentence motions and appeals)
Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. 2007) (pro se filings by represented defendants are legal nullities)
Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 2003) (court misstatements about appeal period can constitute a breakdown allowing review of an otherwise untimely appeal)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (requirements for raising substantial question under discretionary‑sentencing review)