J-S60035-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LUIS OQUENDO, :
:
Appellant : No. 3318 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 5, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000369-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
Luis Oquendo (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence of
October 5, 2015, which imposed an aggregate sentence of 57 months to 15
years of imprisonment, in accordance with the plea agreement negotiated by
the parties. Because the trial court erred by failing to make a determination
as to Appellant’s eligibility for a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI)
sentence under 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501-4512, we vacate Appellant’s sentence
and remand for further proceedings.
On August 31, 2015, Appellant entered into a negotiated guilty plea to
multiple counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
deliver, as well as one charge of criminal conspiracy. As part of the
negotiated agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to a minimum sentence
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60035-16
not to exceed the midpoint of Appellant’s standard-range sentencing
guidelines. The trial court imposed the sentence as negotiated; however, it
failed to make a determination of whether Appellant was RRRI eligible.
Appellant timely filed a motion to reconsider wherein he requested the
trial court make a determination as to Appellant’s RRRI eligibility. The court
declined to do so, explaining that “the statute that [Appellant] cites with
regard to [mandatory minimum sentences] excluding a defendant from RRRI
eligibility is no longer in effect. It remains unclear to this [c]ourt how those
cases that previously would have excluded a defendant from RRRI eligibility
are now being treated.” Order, 10/9/2015, at 1 n.1. The court then noted
that “if the state correctional institution believes that [Appellant] is RRRI
eligible, the [c]ourt will be contacted and act appropriately at that time.” Id.
Appellant now asks us to consider this reasoning on appeal.
Our legislature has made clear that it is the trial court’s responsibility
to determine whether a defendant is RRRI eligible. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756
(b.1) (“[At the time of sentencing t]he court shall determine if the
defendant is eligible for a recidivism risk reduction incentive minimum
sentence under 61 Pa.C.S. Ch. 45 (relating to recidivism risk reduction
incentive)”); 61 Pa.C.S. § 4505 (a) (“At the time of sentencing, the court
shall make a determination whether the defendant is an eligible offender.”)
(emphasis added). “Where the trial court fails to make a statutorily required
determination regarding a defendant’s eligibility for an RRRI minimum
-2-
J-S60035-16
sentence as required, the sentence is illegal.” Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 871 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Accordingly, because the trial court herein failed to consider
Appellant’s eligibility for an RRRI sentence, the sentence imposed is illegal. 1
Thus, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this matter for a
determination of whether Appellant is RRRI eligible and, if deemed eligible,
resentencing with consideration of 61 Pa.C.S. § 4505(c).2
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this order. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/30/2016
1
We note that “the imposition of a negotiated sentence does not conflict
with the statutory scheme of the RRRI sentencing process and does not
disqualify a defendant from eligibility under the RRRI statute.” Robinson, 7
A.3d at 875.
2
In its brief, the Commonwealth concedes that Appellant’s sentence is illegal
and agrees that this matter must be remanded for resentencing following
the court’s determination of Appellant’s RRRI eligibility. Commonwealth’s
Brief at 6-7.
-3-
J-S60035-16
-4-