J-S73033-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR
Appellant No. 423 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002564-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2016
John Thomas Taylor (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas following his
guilty plea to unlawful restraint1 and recklessly endangering another person
(“REAP”).2 After careful review, we affirm.
On August 18, 2015, Appellant was incarcerated in lieu of bond at
Docket No. CP-25-CR-0002564-2015, the instant matter. Also on August
18, 2015, a probation detainer was lodged against Appellant on a prior
matter at Docket No. CP-25-CR-0001351-2014.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2902.
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 2705.
J-S73033-16
Appellant remained incarcerated and, on January 4, 2016, entered a
guilty plea to unlawful restraint and REAP in the instant matter. On March 2,
2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 6 to 23½ months’ incarceration
on the unlawful restraint conviction and 2 years’ probation on the REAP
conviction. At sentencing, the trial court credited Appellant’s continued
incarceration as follows: August 18, 2015 through November 28, 20153
toward the sentence at Docket No. CP-25-CR-0001351-2014, and November
29, 2015 through January 4, 2016 toward the sentence in the instant
matter.
Appellant raises the following claim for our review:
Whether [] Appellant’s sentence is illegal as the trial court
changed, modified or increased the conditions of the sentence
for which [] Appellant was detained without the benefit of a
[p]robation [r]evocation [h]earing and denied [] Appellant credit
on his current sentence[?]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 4.
An allegation that a trial court failed to credit time in custody goes to
the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Clark, 885 A.2d 1030,
1032 (Pa.Super.2005); see also Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 604 A.2d
723, 725 (Pa.Super.1992) (“where an appellant challenges the trial court’s
failure to award credit for time served prior to sentencing, the claim involves
the legality of sentence.” (emphasis in original)). “A claim challenging the
____________________________________________
3
Appellant’s detainer at Docket No. CP-25-CR-0001351-2014 was not
revoked and his sentence expired on November 28, 2015.
-2-
J-S73033-16
legality of sentence is appealable as of right.” Hollawell, 604 A.2d at 725;
Clark, 885 A.2d at 1032. Our scope and standard of review for illegal
sentence claims is as follows:
The scope and standard of review applied to determine the
legality of a sentence are well established. If no statutory
authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is
illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be
vacated. In evaluating a trial court’s application of a statute, our
standard of review is plenary and is limited to determining
whether the trial court committed an error of law.
Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998, 1001-1002 (Pa.Super.2006)
(internal citations omitted).
The Crimes Code provides, in relevant part:
§ 9760. Credit for time served
After reviewing the information submitted under section 9737
(relating to report of outstanding charges and sentences) the
court shall give credit as follows:
(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum
term shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in custody
as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison sentence is
imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such a charge is
based. Credit shall include credit for time spent in custody prior
to trial, during trial, pending sentence, and pending the
resolution of an appeal.
*****
(4) If the defendant is arrested on one charge and later
prosecuted on another charge growing out of an act or acts that
occurred prior to his arrest, credit against the maximum term
and any minimum term of any sentence resulting from such
prosecution shall be given for all time spent in custody under the
former charge that has not been credited against another
sentence.
-3-
J-S73033-16
42 Pa.C.S. § 9760 (emphasis provided).
“Where an offender is incarcerated on both a Board [of Probation and
Parole] detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement
must be credited to either the new sentence or the original sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Mann, 957 A.2d 746, 749 (Pa.Super.2008) (quoting
Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa.2003))
(emphasis in original). However, once a court credits time spent in custody
toward one offense, that time is no longer “a result of” other charges and
cannot form a basis of a further credit for separate sentences. See
Hollawell, 604 A.2d at 726. As this Court has explained, a defendant is not
entitled to double credit:
The absurdity of appellant’s case is clear. Following his
reasoning, appellant would receive a windfall in sentencing for a
completely unrelated crime. This court does not deal in “volume
discounts.” The operative rule . . . is that a defendant should
receive credit only once for time served before sentencing.
Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super.1996) (quoting
Hollawell, 604 A.2d at 726); see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97
A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super.2014) (noting that duplicative imposition of
credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious sentencing mistake).
Here, Appellant received credit for the entire period of his
incarceration. The trial court credited the period of incarceration from
August 18, 2015 through November 28, 2015 toward the sentence at Docket
No. CP-25-CR-0001351-2014, and the period of November 29, 2015 through
-4-
J-S73033-16
January 4, 2016 toward the sentence in the instant matter. As the trial
court explained,
It is uncontroverted Appellant received credit at Docket Number
1351 of 2014 for [the] time period [from August 18, 2015
through November 28, 2015,] which allowed that sentence to
max out. Appellant is not entitled to duplicate credit. Hence,
Appellant is not entitled to credit from August 18, 2015 to
November 28, 2015 in this case.
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed March 30, 2016, p. 4 (footnote
and internal citation omitted). We agree with the Commonwealth and the
trial court that Appellant properly received all credit due. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2016
-5-
Com. v. Taylor, J.
Combined Opinion