J-A04024-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT IRVING MEEKINS,
Appellant No. 1009 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of May 22, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0008574-2011
BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015
Appellant, Robert Irving Meekins, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on May 22, 2014 following his stipulated bench trial
convictions for three narcotics offenses and false identification to law
enforcement authorities.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges only the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his false identification to law
enforcement authorities conviction.2 Appellant’s Brief at 5. The
Commonwealth agrees with Appellant’s contention that the evidence of
record is insufficient to establish the offense of false identification to law
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16), and 780-113(a)(31); 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4914.
2
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his
other convictions.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04024-15
enforcement authorities. Commonwealth’s Brief at 8. Upon review of the
certified record, we vacate Appellant’s false identification to law enforcement
authorities conviction, vacate his sentence in its entirety as illegal, and
remand for resentencing.
When reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, our
standard of review is as follows:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition,
we note that the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be
resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of
fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means
of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the
above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe
all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2014)
“A person commits [the] offense [of false identification to law
enforcement authorities] if he furnishes law enforcement authorities with
false information about his identity after being informed by a law
enforcement officer who is in uniform or who has identified himself as a law
-2-
J-A04024-15
enforcement officer that the person is the subject of an official investigation
of a violation of law.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4914. Under the plain language of the
statute, three conditions must be satisfied before an individual will be found
to have violated the statute by providing false information about his identity:
First, if the law enforcement officer is not in uniform, the
officer must identify himself as a law enforcement officer.
Second, the individual must be informed by the law
enforcement officer that he is the subject of an official
investigation of a violation of law. Third, the individual must
have furnished law enforcement authorities with false
information after being informed by the law enforcement
officer that he was the subject of an official investigation of
a violation of law.
In re D.S., 39 A.3d 968, 974 (Pa. 2012) (emphasis supplied).
In this matter, the case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial wherein
both parties moved to incorporate the notes of testimony from the
suppression hearing into the record. N.T., 5/22/2014, at 7. Officer Randy
Lamb of the Wilkins Township Police Department testified that on March 5,
2011, police conducted a traffic stop of a car wherein the driver was arrested
for driving under the influence. N.T., 3/5/2014, at 3. Appellant was a
passenger in the back seat. Id. at 3-4. Appellant was asked for
identification and he stated his name was “Jonathon Hutchinson.” Id. at 4.
After Appellant got out of the car, he told Officer Lamb, “he lied about who
he was and that he had an active warrant out of Cambria County.” Id. at 5.
Officer Lamb confirmed that there was an active arrest warrant issued for
-3-
J-A04024-15
Appellant with the Johnstown Police Department. Id. Police arrested
Appellant. Id. at 6.
Noticeably absent from the examination of Officer Lamb was any
evidence that the police officers involved were in uniform or that Appellant
had been advised that he was the subject of an investigation or a violation of
law. Appellant volunteered the false information during the investigation of
the driver, not him. Thus, we conclude that the Commonwealth failed to
elicit sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction for false
identification to law enforcement authorities; hence, we vacate that
conviction.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory term of three to six
years of imprisonment on one of his narcotics’ convictions. Id. at 13. The
trial court sentenced Appellant to “[n]o further penalty at any remaining
counts.” Id. Because Appellant was not sentenced on the false identification
to law enforcement authorities, we would normally conclude the trial court’s
sentencing scheme was not upset and, thus, a remand for resentencing
would be unwarranted. Commonwealth v. Lomax, 8 A.3d 1264, 1268 (Pa.
Super. 2010) (“Because we can vacate the indecent assault sentence
without disturbing the overall sentencing scheme, we need not remand.”),
citing Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(stating that when our disposition does not upset overall sentencing scheme,
there is no need for a remand). However, upon further review, Appellant’s
-4-
J-A04024-15
sentence is illegal3 and, therefore, we are constrained to vacate his sentence
in its entirety.
This Court has previously concluded:
A challenge to the legality of a sentence may be entertained
as long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction. It is also
well-established that if no statutory authorization exists for
a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to
correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated. Issues
relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law.
Our standard of review over such questions is de novo and
our scope of review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations,
quotations, and ellipses omitted). In Fennell, this Court determined that 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 7508,4 a statute which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence
based upon the weight of narcotics recovered, was unconstitutional in its
entirety based upon the United States Supreme Court decision in Alleyne v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). See Fennell generally.
Based upon our sua sponte review of the record, we are constrained to
vacate Appellant’s illegal sentence. Appellant was convicted of possession
____________________________________________
3
“[T]his Court is endowed with the ability to consider an issue of illegality of
sentence sua sponte.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 883 n.7
(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
4
Section 7508 of the Crimes Code provides that “when the aggregate weight
of the compound or mixture containing [cocaine] is at least ten grams and
less than 100 grams; [the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be]
three years in prison and a fine of $15,000 or such larger amount as is
sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal
activity[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(3)(ii).
-5-
J-A04024-15
with the intent to deliver crack cocaine. The parties stipulated that the
narcotics weighed 83.1 grams. N.T., 5/22/2014, at 8. The Commonwealth
asked for a mandatory minimum sentence of three years of imprisonment.
Id. at 12. The sentencing guideline form, contained within the certified
record, recommends a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years based upon
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508. The trial court entered a mandatory sentence of three
to six years of imprisonment. Id. at 13. We are bound by Fennell to
vacate Appellant’s sentence as illegal.
Conviction for false identification to law enforcement authorities
vacated. Remaining narcotics convictions affirmed. Sentence vacated in its
entirety. Remand for resentencing consistent with this memorandum.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2015
-6-
Com. v. Meekins, R.
Combined Opinion