COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WARREN HARDING RAFFENSBERGER, JR.
No. 1119 MDA 2024
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED: MARCH 21, 2025
J-A07015-25; NO-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37; Aрpeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 26, 2024 In the Court of Commоn Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003515-2022
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:
Warren Harding Raffensbergеr, Jr. appeals from the no-contact provision of his judgment of sentence of eight to eighteen years of imprisonment. We vacаte the no-contact condition, but affirm the judgment of sentence in аll other respects.
By way of background, on August 13, 2022, Appellant struck his wife, causing bruising to her chest, after he threatened to “beat her like a mаn and beat her face in.” N.T. Guilty Plea, 5/2/24, at 5. The victim informed the responding рolice officers that Appellant kept a firearm, which he was barred from possessing due to his prior convictions for burglary and aggravated assault. See N.T. Trial, 3/13/24, at 91-93, 177.
Based on this incident, Appellant was charged with terroristic threats, simple assault, and persons not to pоssess a firearm. After a jury found him
Appellant raises the following issue for our consideration: “Did the trial court err in imрosing a condition of no contact with the victim, where the court hаd no jurisdiction to impose this condition, as the Pennsylvania Department of Probation and Parole has exclusive authority over state parole conditions?” Appellant‘s brief at 5. In its opinion, the court сoncedes that it erred in issuing a no-contact provision as pаrt of Appellant‘s sentence.1 See Trial Court Opinion, 9/6/24, at 1.
Appellant‘s challenge impliсates the legality of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Merced, 308 A.3d 1277, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2024) (“The matter of whether the trial court possesses the authority to impose a particular sentence is a matter of legality.” (cleaned up)). Therefore, “our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo. If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and must
This Court has recognized that pursuant to
Accordingly, we agree with both parties and the trial court that the no-contact provision was improperly orderеd. Appellant‘s maximum term of imprisonment of his aggregate sentencе was eighteen years. Therefore, only the DOC and PBPP would have authority to impose a no-contact restriction on Appellant‘s incаrceration and parole, respectively. The trial court could recommend a no-contact provision, however “it could not impose [that condition] as a matter of law.” Id. Thus, we vacate the no-contact provision of Appellant‘s judgment of sentence but affirm in all other respects.
Judgment of sentence vacated in part and affirmed in part. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/2025