J-S15036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MARK QUINTIN GALLOWAY
Appellant No. 1116 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003033-2007
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2015
Appellant Mark Quintin Galloway appeals from the order entered in the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, denying his “Motion for Disclosure
of Facts Relevant to Sentence” (“motion for disclosure”). We affirm.
Before Appellant filed his motion for disclosure, this Court summarized
the relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal in a memorandum
affirming the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”)1 court’s order dismissing
Appellant’s petition for relief:
On June 3, 2007, [Appellant] was charged with four counts
of attempted homicide, five counts of aggravated assault,
and one count each of prohibited possession of a firearm
and alteration or obliteration of marks of identification.
See 18 [Pa.C.S.] §§ 901, 2702, 6105, 6117. On
September 8, 2008, [Appellant] entered an open guilty
____________________________________________
1
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S15036-15
plea to the above-referenced charges, after which the trial
court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of forty-one
and one-half years to one hundred years in prison.[2]
[Appellant] filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial
court denied. This Court affirmed [Appellant’s] judgment
of sentence in January 2010. See Commonwealth v.
Galloway, 991 A.2d 356 (Pa.Super.2010) (unpublished
memorandum). In June 2010, [Appellant] timely filed a
pro se PCRA Petition, after which [Appellant’s] newly-
appointed counsel filed an amended PCRA petition. On
August 29, 2011, the PCRA court denied the amended
petition.
Commonwealth v. Galloway, 1683 MDA 2011 (filed July 19, 2012).
This Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order on July 19, 2012. On June
5, 2014, Appellant filed his pro se motion for disclosure, which the court
denied on June 19, 2014. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On July
14, 2014, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, and Appellant timely complied on July 23, 2014.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE JOSEPH C.
MADENSPACHER ERRED WHEN HE DENIED APPELLANT’S
____________________________________________
2
Specifically, the court sentenced Appellant to: (1) Count 1, criminal
attempt homicide - 9 ½ to 20 years; (2) Count 2, criminal attempt homicide
- 7 ½ to 20 years; (3) Count 3, criminal attempt homicide - 9 ½ to 20
years; (4) Count 4, criminal attempt homicide - 9 ½ to 20 years; (5) Count
5, aggravated assault - merged for purposes of sentencing with Count 1; (6)
Count 6, aggravated assault - merged for purposes of sentencing with Count
2; (7) Count 7, aggravated assault - merged for purposes of sentencing with
Count 4; (8) Count 8, aggravated assault - merged for purposes of
sentencing with Count 3; (9) Count 9, aggravated assault - 5 ½ to 20 years;
(10) Count 10, person not to possess firearms - 3 to 6 years; (11) Count 11,
altering/obliterating marks of identification - 1 to 2 years. Trial Court
Opinion, filed January 6, 2010, at 5.
-2-
J-S15036-15
MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF FACTS RELEVANT TO
SENTENCE, ULTIMATELY, FAILING TO ANSWER
APPELLANT’S QUESTION CONCERNING THE LEGISLATIVE
[STATUTE(S) THAT] AUTHORIZED THE COURT TO IMPOSE
THE SENTENCE(S) THAT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED[?]
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Appellant argues that the trial court obstructed his right to appeal
because it refused to explain the authority it used to sentence him. He
claims that he does not know what statutes the court used in sentencing
him, and consequentially cannot properly challenge his sentence. He
concludes that the court erred by denying his motion for such information.
We disagree.
The trial court was under no obligation to answer Appellant’s motion
seeking information when the appeal process had already concluded and
Appellant had no pending PCRA petition before this Court. Appellant
requested yet another explanation for his sentence despite receiving multiple
opinions from the trial court and this Court in direct and PCRA appeals. The
Rules require no additional explanation for why the court denied the motion.
To the extent Appellant asked the court for information relating to his
sentence, the trial court attached a comprehensive summary of his
sentences and the underlying facts of the case to its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion, filed September 22, 2014. For any other questions, Appellant need
only consult the record of his case. Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-
J-S15036-15
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/13/2015
-4-