J-S26043-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHARLES STANLEY :
:
Appellant : No. 2097 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered May 23, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-CR-0005974-2004
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 01, 2018
Appellant Charles Stanley appeals from the order entered by the Court
of Common Pleas of Delaware County denying his “Petition for Time Credit.”
We quash this appeal for lack of jurisdiction over the claim.
On April 6, 2006, Appellant was convicted of third-degree murder,
aggravated assault, and related offenses. On June 27, 2006, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of fourteen to twenty-eight years’
imprisonment. On March 14, 2008, this Court affirmed the judgment of
sentence and on November 17, 2008, our Supreme Court denied Appellant’s
petition for allowance of appeal.
On July 22, 2010, Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court
appointed counsel, who subsequently filed a petition to withdraw and a no-
merit letter pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988)
and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988). The PCRA
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S26043-18
court permitted counsel to withdraw and dismissed Appellant’s petition.
Appellant did not appeal.
On September 25, 2015, Appellant filed a “Petition Seeking Correction
of Sentence Credit for Time Served.” The lower court dismissed the petition,
noting that the certificate of imposition of judgment of sentence filed on June
30, 2006, states that “[t]he defendant shall receive such credit for time served
as he is entitled by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” The
lower court instructed Appellant to file an original action in the Commonwealth
Court if he wished to raise a challenge regarding the proper calculation of his
sentence. Order, 9/29/15, at 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 115 A.3d
876 (Pa.Super. 2015).
Thereafter, Appellant did not file an action in the Commonwealth Court,
but filed a second PCRA petition alleging that he had received an illegal
sentence without the proper award of credit for time served. The PCRA court
dismissed the petition as untimely filed. This Court subsequently affirmed the
dismissal, recognizing Appellant’s challenge to the computation of his
sentence by the Department of Corrections (DOC) was not cognizable under
the PCRA and finding that there is no ambiguity in Appellant’s sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Stanley, 959 EDA 2016 (Pa.Super. October 31, 2016)
(unpublished memorandum). This Court instructed Appellant to file an original
action in the Commonwealth Court to raise a challenge to the computation of
his sentence. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 395
(Pa.Super. 2014)).
-2-
J-S26043-18
This Court notes with disapproval that Appellant continued to file similar
challenges seeking credit for time served in the Court of Common Pleas,
including his “Petition for Time Credit” filed on May 2, 2017. After the lower
court dismissed this filing on May 23, 2017, Appellant filed this timely appeal.
This Court is vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals
from final orders of the courts of common pleas except in those cases within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742. This Court has determined that “[i]f the alleged error is
thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the
Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an
original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau's
computation.” Heredia, 97 A.3d at 395; see also Wyatt, 115 A.3d at 879–
880 (citing McCray v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 582 Pa. 440, 872 A.2d
1127, 1131 (2005)) (stating “[w]here discretionary actions and criteria are
not being contested, but rather the actions of the Department in computing
an inmate's maximum and minimum dates of confinement are being
challenged, an action for mandamus remains viable as a means for examining
whether statutory requirements have been met”). In addition,
the Commonwealth Court has held that, where an inmate's
petition did not challenge the trial court's sentencing order, and
instead challenged only the governmental actions of the clerk of
court and corrections officials in the wake of that sentencing order
(including clerk's generation of commitment form inconsistent
with sentencing order), the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the
matter, and the petition was properly filed in the Commonwealth
Court.”
-3-
J-S26043-18
Heredia, 97 A.3d at 305, n. 4 (citations omitted).
Herein, Appellant presents a challenge only to the DOC's computation
of the sentence he currently is serving. Therefore, we quash the instant appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/1/18
-4-