J-S68036-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WESLEY LOTT HUEY :
:
Appellant : No. 674 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 6, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-61-CR-0000400-2011
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2018
Appellant Wesley Lott Huey appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County on April 6, 2018,
following the revocation of his probation. We affirm.
Appellant does not dispute the trial court’s statement of the factual
background and procedural history and, in fact, he relies upon the same in his
appellate brief. See Brief for Appellant at 6-10 (citing Trial Court Opinion,
filed 7/98/18, at 1-4).
In his brief, Appellant presents the following Statement of Question
Involved:
Whether the lower court erred or abused its discretion by
sentencing [Appellant] on a pro[b]ation revocation where the
Commonwealth waited an unreasonable amount of time before
revoking [Appellant] for a 2015 Escape conviction?
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68036-18
Brief for Appellant at 5.1
In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court violated
Pa.R.Crim.P. 7082 by failing to hold a revocation hearing as speedily as
possible. Brief for Appellant at 18-20. Appellant contends that, because of the
delay, his sentence should be vacated and the matter should be remanded for
a new hearing and/or resentencing.
In an appeal from a sentence imposed after the trial court has revoked
probation, this Court may review “the validity of the revocation proceedings,
the legality of the sentence imposed following revocation, and any challenge
to the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed.” Commonwealth v.
Wright, 116 A.3d 133, 136 (Pa.Super. 2015).
____________________________________________
1The Commonwealth did not file an appellate brief.
2Pa.R.Crim.P. 708, which pertains, inter alia, to a violation of probation,
provides, in relevant part:
(B) Whenever a defendant has been sentenced to probation or
intermediate punishment, or placed on parole, the judge shall not
revoke such probation, intermediate punishment, or parole as
allowed by law unless there has been:
(1) a hearing held as speedily as possible at which the
defendant is present and represented by counsel; and
(2) a finding of record that the defendant violated a condition of
probation, intermediate punishment, or parole.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(B) (emphasis added).
-2-
J-S68036-18
We have reviewed the certified record, Appellant’s brief, the applicable
law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Robert L. Boyer of
the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County filed on July 9, 2018, We
conclude that Judge Boyer’s opinion accurately disposes of the issue Appellant
presents on appeal, and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law.
Accordingly, we adopt Judge Boyer’s Opinion as our own and affirm the
judgment of sentence on that basis.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/14/2018
-3-
Circulated 10/19/2018 10:26 AM
07/09/2018 MON 13: 12 FAX 814 432 9579 vc Prothonota.ry ��� PD �001/011
lN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF VENANGO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANfA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANTA
v.
CR. No. 400-2011
WESLEY LOTT HOEY,
Defendant.
l�·-..1
-1• r::.: <',
I \.-,C..J
r
t
r-r·, . '·"..l
r-
.....
,., , .. ;t;
,...1_) i''.,; '':_�l.
r=
I ( • .,., ;
:_:1�· � ;.�!-;.'
OPINION OF COURT
�;:;•I \� :.·;•;;;"I/.. , ;r·.:1�
i,·
� t'.::)' !) • · '. '1(1•1
AND NOW, this � day of July, 2018, the Court has before it P�lilt�1:r�r's � � ��� ·,
1 .: 011 [. r
C/'I ;,, ,-.. •• -., (. �
• .I • ,· (""·
,
('
statement of errors complained of on appeal. Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(u)(l), tbe-coMt Jss11�s'
.... i
the following opinion.
Factual Background and Procedural History
Petitioner in the above-captioned matter was sentenced on July 19, 2011 fol' a.11 unrelated
conviction, specifically Count Two-manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture
a controlled substance, at criminal docket number 258-201 J, for violating 35 Pa. C.S.A. § 780-
l l 3(a)(3 ), an ungraded felony. This Court sentenced Petitioner to a split sentence, at which he
was to undergo a term of incarceration of nine to twenty-foul' months, immediately followed by a
three year pro bationary period, At cri111i11aI docket number 258-2011, Petitioner was paroled on
January 10, 2012, with a maximum expiration date of Apl'il 23, 2013. That term of incarceration
was to be followed by his three year probationary tail, which had a maximum date of April 23,
2016.
On September 8, 2011, Petitioner entered into a negotiated guilty plea in which he pied
guilty to Count One-theft by unlawful taking at the above-captioned criminal docket, in
Attachment A
07/09/2018 ! including
both his parole at 258-2011 and his probation at 400-2011, were legal based upon his 2015
conviction of escape in Allegheny County. As we found the escape conviction to be a material
violation of Petitioner's parole at docket number 258-2011, we were well-within our authority
as the original sentencing court to revoke his parole and recommit him to the custody of the
Department of Corrections to serve out the balance of his original sentence at that criminal
docket.
As evidenced by the case law cited immediately above, even though Petitioner had yet to
begin his term of probation at docket number 400-2011 when he was convicted of escape in
Allegheny County, we were still within our authority as the original sentencing court to revoke
his probation at that docket. Moreover, we correctly found that Petitioner's stipulated-to 2015
conviction was a material violation to the terms of his probation, and we therefore correctly
revoked his probation pending resentencing, At resentencing, we possessed the same sentencing
options as we did when we originally sentenced the Petitioner in 2011. Because we possessed all
of those options previously available, we correctly and legally resentenced Petitioner to a term of
six tu twelve months' incarceration.
As the combined terms of incarceration at both Petitioner's parole and probation
revocations do not accumulate to a sentence beyond the statutory maximums prescribed by law
for either offense, the sentences given to Petitioner were legal and therefore all appellate issues
raised by Petitioner are metitless.
10
07/09/2018 KON 13113 FAX 814 432 9579 vc Prothonotary ��� PD �011/011
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court respectfully requests the Superior Court dismiss
Petitioner's appeal in the above-captioned matter.
BY THE COURT,
Robert L. Boyer, J.
cc: Brenda Servidio, P.sq. (DA)
Jeri Bolton, Esq, (PD)
/LCW
11