J. S08017/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JAMES CHARLES COLE, : No. 615 WDA 2016
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 24, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0015767-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND SOLANO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 26, 2017
James Charles Cole appeals nunc pro tunc from the March 24, 2014
aggregate judgment of sentence of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, to be
followed by 11 years’ probation, imposed following the revocation of his
probation. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The trial court summarized the early procedural history of this case as
follows:
On March 18, 2013, [appellant] pled guilty to
two counts of Indecent Assault Person Less than
13 Years of Age, one count of Corruption of Minors,
one count of Unlawful Contact with a Minor, and one
count of Sale of Tobacco. [On October 3, 2013, the
trial c]ourt sentenced [appellant] to six to twelve
months [of] incarceration, paroled forthwith and
placed him on five years [of] probation with one year
of that probation to be served on intermediate
punishment. On March 24, 2014, after a hearing,
th[e trial c]ourt revoked [a]ppellant’s probation
J. S08017/17
based on technical violations and lack of housing to
serve his intermediate punishment sentence, and
resentenced him to 24 to 72 months [of]
incarceration and 11 years of probation consecutive
[to the term of incarceration]. On November 14,
2014, th[e trial c]ourt filed its Opinion in support of
the March 24, 2014 Order. [(See trial court opinion,
11/14/14.)] The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in
a Non-precedential decision issued on April 10, 2015,
found that [a]ppellant’s issue was waived on appeal
because his counsel had failed to comply with
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). [See Commonwealth v. Cole,
121 A.3d 1127 (Pa.Super. 2015) (unpublished
memorandum at *2).]
Trial court opinion, 8/22/16 at 2-3 (footnotes omitted; citations added).
On May 12, 2015, appellant filed a timely pro se PCRA1 petition and
Robert J. Perkins, Esq. (“Attorney Perkins”), was appointed to represent him.
Attorney Perkins filed an amended PCRA petition on appellant’s behalf on
February 2, 2016, requesting that both appellant’s post-sentence motion and
direct-appeal rights be reinstated. (See amended PCRA petition, 2/2/16 at
17, ¶ 125.) In his amended PCRA petition, appellant argued, inter alia,
that (i) his hearing counsel, Kelli Kleeb, Esq. (“Attorney Kleeb”) was
ineffective in failing to file a post-sentence motion preserving his
discretionary aspects of sentencing claim; and (ii) his appellate counsel,
Daniel Eichinger, Esq. (“Attorney Eichinger”), was ineffective in failing to
include a Rule 2119(f) statement in his appellate brief. (Id. at 10-11,
15-17.)
1
Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-2-
J. S08017/17
On March 2, 2016, the Commonwealth filed its motion to dismiss
appellant’s amended PCRA petition. On March 7, 2016, the PCRA court
provided appellant with notice, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1), of its
intention to dismiss his petition without a hearing. On March 24, 2016,
Attorney Perkins filed a response to the PCRA court’s Rule 907 notice, which
only sought the reinstatement of appellant’s direct-appeal rights or,
alternatively, a hearing. (See response to Rule 907 notice, 3/24/16 at 5.)
Thereafter, on March 31, 2016, the PCRA court granted appellant’s request
and reinstated his direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc. This timely appeal
followed on April 28, 2016.2
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
After finding that [appellant] committed technical
violations of his probation, did the trial court err and
abuse its discretion when it imposed a sentence of
two to six years of incarceration and total
confinement based on reasons inconsistent with the
provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9771(c)?
Appellant’s brief at 6. Appellant maintains that the problem with his
sentence is “its severity . . . is disproportionate to its triggering factor --
[appellant’s] inability to find suitable housing (as opposed to, for example a
conviction for a new crime, or a violation of a no-contact Order with the
2
Appellant complied with the PCRA court’s directive and filed a timely
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), on May 20, 2016. The PCRA court, in turn, filed its
Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 22, 2016.
-3-
J. S08017/17
victim of a violent crime).” (Id. at 20-21.) This implicates the discretionary
aspects of appellant’s sentence.
Where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his
sentence, as is the case here, the right to appellate review is not absolute.
See Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa.Super. 2011).
Rather, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence
must invoke this court’s jurisdiction by satisfying the following four-part
test:
(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether
Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether
Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the
reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with
respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and
(4) whether the concise statement raises a
substantial question that the sentence is appropriate
under the sentencing code.
Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa.Super. 2013)
(citations omitted).
Instantly, the record reveals that appellant filed his nunc pro tunc
notice of appeal in a timely manner. However, at the March 24, 2014
hearing, appellant failed to object to the sentence imposed or file a post-
sentence motion preserving his discretionary aspects of sentencing claim.
Accordingly, we are constrained to deem appellant’s claim waived. See
Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2013)
(stating, “issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be
raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court
-4-
J. S08017/17
during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such efforts, an objection to a
discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.” (citation omitted)); see also
Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 289 (Pa.Super. 2008)
(stating, “when a court revokes probation and imposes a new sentence, a
criminal defendant needs to preserve challenges to the discretionary aspects
of that new sentence either by objecting during the revocation sentencing or
by filing a post-sentence motion.” (citation omitted)).
In reaching this decision, we recognize that in Commonwealth v.
Liston, 977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009), our supreme court expressly noted that a
PCRA court may reinstate a defendant’s post-sentence rights nunc pro tunc
“[i]f a defendant successfully pleads and proves that he was deprived of the
right to file and litigate said motions as a result of the ineffective assistance
of counsel[,]” as appellant claimed herein. Id. at 1095 n.9; see also
amended PCRA petition, 2/2/16 at 10, 17, ¶¶ 80, 117. The PCRA court in
the instant matter, however, failed to do so and merely reinstated
appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, we decline to
-5-
J. S08017/17
conduct a merits-based review of appellant’s waived discretionary aspects of
sentencing claim.3
Based on the foregoing, we affirm appellant’s March 24, 2014
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Solano, J. joins this Memorandum.
Gantman, P.J. files a Concurring Statement.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/26/2017
3
While we might agree with President Judge Gantman’s concerns regarding
the waiver trap presented by the PCRA court’s failure to allow for post-trial
motions nunc pro tunc, we cannot agree that appellant has specifically
presented this issue in either his Rule 1925(b) statement or in his brief. This
author writing for the court en banc attempted to require the filing of
post-trial motions nunc pro tunc whenever a nunc pro tunc appeal was
granted to protect full appellate rights. See Commonwealth v. Liston,
941 A.2d 1279 (Pa.Super. 2008), affirmed in part and vacated in part,
977 A.2d 1089 (Pa. 2009). However, our supreme court in Liston, supra,
overruled this court on that specific issue. Liston, 977 A.2d at 1093-1094.
Even if, as presented by the dissent, appellant had plead and proved
ineffective assistance of counsel on this issue below, appellant is required to
at least raise the PCRA court’s error before this court either on motion or on
-6-
J. S08017/17
appeal, which would allow us to remand for the filing of post-trial motions
nunc pro tunc.
-7-