Com. v. Wilson, J.
Com. v. Wilson, J. No. 970 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Jason Lee Wilson pleaded guilty in 2008 to aggravated assault, criminal trespass, and escape and received an aggregate sentence of 147 to 294 months.
- Wilson's direct appeals and multiple PCRA proceedings followed; his appellate rights were at times reinstated nunc pro tunc and various PCRA petitions were litigated.
- In Feb.–Mar. 2016 Wilson filed pro se materials seeking resentencing, arguing the presentence investigation (PSI) misclassified a prior conviction and produced an incorrect prior record score.
- On March 23, 2016 the trial court ordered resentencing and scheduled a hearing but did not expressly state that the 2008 sentence was vacated.
- After hearings in May 2016 the court concluded the PSI misclassified one prior conviction but the error did not affect Wilson’s prior record score and declined to vacate the original sentence; it entered its dispositive order on May 24, 2016 and denied reconsideration on June 2, 2016.
- Wilson filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2016; the Superior Court quashed the appeal as untimely because the May 24, 2016 order was a final, appealable order and his motion for reconsideration did not toll the 30-day appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 23, 2016 order vacated the 2008 sentence, making later filings post-sentence and tolling appeal time | March 23 order granted resentencing and thus vacated the prior judgment, so Wilson’s post‑sentence motion (reconsideration) tolled the appeal period | The March 23 order did not state the sentence was vacated and the court never intended to vacate it; therefore appeal time began on May 24 | The March 23 order did not vacate the sentence; the May 24 order was final and appealable and Wilson’s appeal was untimely |
| Whether the PSI misclassification required vacatur and resentencing | PSI incorrectly classified a prior conviction (Felony I vs II) and thus produced an incorrect prior record score, requiring vacatur and resentencing | The misclassification did not affect the prior record score or the court’s sentencing considerations, so vacatur was unnecessary | The court found the PSI error had no effect on the prior record score; no vacatur required |
| Whether Wilson was denied allocution at the May 19, 2016 proceeding | Wilson contends he was not given opportunity to address the court before sentence was imposed | The court treated the May 19 proceeding as a resolution of the resentencing petition and did not improperly deny allocution | Superior Court did not reach merits because appeal was quashed as untimely (timeliness dispositive) |
| Whether Wilson was entitled to present updated information at resentencing | Wilson requested a resentencing hearing to present events since 2008 and additional information | The court determined vacatur and new sentencing were unnecessary because the prior record score was unaffected | Not reached on merits due to timeliness; remedy denied because appeal untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. Commonwealth, 930 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2007) (post-judgment motions filed after sentence final are construed as PCRA petitions)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 65 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reiterating that post-judgment motions are to be treated as PCRA petitions when they present challenges that are collateral or involve sentencing legality)
- Evans v. Commonwealth, 866 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 2005) (treating post-sentence motions as PCRA petitions under comparable circumstances)
- Guthrie v. Commonwealth, 749 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2000) (same principle regarding conversion to PCRA petitions)
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (procedures for waiver of counsel and PCRA hearing appointment)
- Gardner v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 100 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a motion for reconsideration filed after the thirty-day period does not toll the time to appeal)