J-S29033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
WILLIAM PAUL SALTSMAN, :
:
Appellant : No. 1799 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000191-1987
BEFORE: PANELLA, MUNDY, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 16, 2015
William Paul Saltsman (Appellant) appeals from the denial of the relief
requested in an “Application for Bail” and “Assertion for Immediate Bail
Hearing.” We affirm.
The lower court summarized the history of this case as follows.
On April 10, 1987, [Appellant] entered a guilty plea to
murder in the first degree, robbery, kidnapping, possession of an
instrument of crime and carrying a firearm without a license for
his actions in kidnapping, robbing and killing 22 year old Robert
J. Garlick.
On June 8, 1987 [Appellant] filed a petition to withdraw
guilty plea. A pre-sentence investigation and psychiatric
evaluation [were] conducted. On October 20, 1987, the court
found that [Appellant] was competent to stand trial and could be
held criminally responsible for the crimes charged. On October
22, 1987[, the court] issued a lengthy opinion considering the
merits of [Appellant’s] petition to withdraw guilty plea in light of
the results of the pre-sentence investigation and psychiatric
examination. [The court] denied the petition.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29033-15
On October 29, 1987[, Appellant] was sentenced for his
heinous crimes to a term of life imprisonment on the charge of
murder in the first degree. He also received sentences of 10 to
20 years [of incarceration] each on the charges of robbery and
kidnapping, concurrent to one another but consecutive to the life
term and 2 ½ to 5 years [of incarceration] for each offense of
possession of an instrument of crime and carrying a firearm
without a license. The sentences for the latter two crimes were
also to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the
10 to 20 years on the robbery and kidnapping charges. The
sentence of life imprisonment began on October 29, 1987.
[Appellant] filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty
plea which was also denied.
Lower Court Opinion, 4/22/2014, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
Appellant appealed. On June 20, 1988, a panel of this Court affirmed
Appellant’s judgment of sentence, and our Supreme Court denied his
petition for allowance of appeal on July 5, 1989. Commonwealth v.
Saltsman, 547 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1988), appeal denied, 562 A.2d 826
(Pa. 1989). Thereafter, Appellant filed several unsuccessful PCRA petitions.
On April 14, 2014, Appellant filed two documents with the lower court:
1) an Application for Bail, and 2) an Assertion for Immediate Bail Hearing.
The Application for Bail states the following, in its entirety:
I William P. Saltsman, at this time do not challenge the legality
of Sentence.
18 4904 /s/ Wliliam Paul Saltsman
I do however after years of sedulous Pro Se work have
concluded that I have satisfied my Sentence.
I also request/assert at this time my right to Bail under the
U.S. and PA Constitution.
-2-
J-S29033-15
I William P. Saltsman command an immediate hearing
and/or evidentiary hearing if any dispute arises in regards to this
application for Bail. Alternative Relief to hearing will be oral
arguments as to Bail Application and Sentence of Record.
Application for Bail, 4/14/2014 (verbatim).
Appellant’s Assertion for Immediate Bail Hearing states, in its entirety,
“I William P. Saltsman, at this time under my Rights request immediate
hearing for my Bail Application under my Constitutional Rights of the U.S.
and PA Constitutions[.]” Assertion for Immediate Bail Hearing, 4/14/2014.
On April 22, 2014, the lower court denied both motions. Appellant
filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The lower court ordered a statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On
December 4, 2014, Appellant filed his statement, which set forth 17 issues
challenging both his guilty plea and sentence. The lower court then filed an
opinion in support of its denial of bail to Appellant.
On appeal, Appellant sets forth four issues for our review.
1. Whether the lower court erred in denying Appellant’s request
for bail?
2. Whether Appellant has satisfied his sentence to 191-1987?
3. Whether Appellant was actually sentenced to a term of life
imprisonment?
4. Whether the state of Pennsylvania under Purdons has the
authority to charge, convict, commit, or sentence [Appellant]?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
-3-
J-S29033-15
In support of his claim that the court erred in failing to grant bail,
Appellant cites to a portion of Pa.R.Crim.P. 520(B). Appellant’s Brief at 7.
Appellant argues that “he has satisfied his sentence and that this is not a
capital case. He is therefore bailable.” Id.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 520 governs the right to bail
before verdict, and provides as follows.
(A) Bail before verdict shall be set in all cases as permitted by
law. Whenever bail is refused, the bail authority shall state in
writing or on the record the reasons for that determination.
(B) A defendant may be admitted to bail on any day and at any
time.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 520. Thus, this rule applies only to requests for bail made prior
to a verdict being rendered. Because in 1987 Appellant pled guilty to and
was sentenced for, inter alia, first-degree murder, this rule does not provide
Appellant an avenue for relief. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying
Appellant’s request for bail.1
We address Appellant’s next three issues together. Appellant argues
that he has satisfied his sentence because he believes that he was sentenced
to a term of 12 ½ to 25 years’ incarceration, which would have expired on
February 24, 2015. Appellant’s Brief at 7. Appellant also suggests that his
1987 guilty plea was entered into unknowingly and involuntarily because he
1
Moreover, we observe that “[w]hen a defendant is found guilty of an
offense which is punishable by death or life imprisonment, the defendant
shall not be released on bail.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 521(a).
-4-
J-S29033-15
did not know he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison with no
chance for parole. Id. at 7-8. Appellant further contends his sentence is
illegal because there is no “statutory authorization” for the term “life”
imprisonment. Id. at 8. Appellant then goes on for several pages in his brief
citing purported authority for this proposition. Id. at 8-11. Finally, Appellant
contends that “Purdon’s is not legal evidence of the official version of
Pennsylvania Pamphlet Laws.” Id. at 11.
These issues were not presented in Appellant’s Application for Bail or
Assertion for Immediate Bail Hearing. It is well-settled that “[i]ssues not
raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Furthermore, “[a] party cannot rectify the
failure to preserve an issue by proffering it in response to a Rule 1925(b)
order.” Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278, 1288
(Pa. Super. 2004). Thus, Appellant has waived these issues.
Because Appellant has not presented this Court with any argument
convincing us the lower court erred in denying his request for bail, we affirm
the court’s order.2
Order affirmed.
2
To the extent Appellant is seeking relief available under the Post-Conviction
Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9545, his petition is facially untimely and no
exceptions are pled.
-5-
J-S29033-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/16/2015
-6-