J-S24017-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER DICKINSON
Appellant No. 959 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at Nos: CP-02-CR-0008066-2015, CP-02-CR-0010547-
2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 8, 2017
Appellant, Christopher Dickinson, appeals from the February 29, 2016
judgment of sentence imposing an aggregate 36 to 72 months of
incarceration followed by three years of probation. We vacate and remand
for a new sentencing hearing.
On December 14, 2015, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of robbery
and one count each of simple assault, recklessly endangering another
person, resisting arrest, and flight to avoid apprehension.1 At the February
29, 2016 sentencing hearing, the trial court neglected to determine whether
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 2701, 2705, 5104, and 5126, respectively.
J-S24017-17
Appellant was eligible for a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”)
sentence. Statutory law requires the trial court to make that determination.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1); 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a). “[W]here the trial court
fails to make a statutorily required determination regarding a defendant’s
eligibility for an RRRI minimum sentence as required, the sentence is
illegal.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 870 (Pa. Super. 2014).
The Commonwealth concedes this point.2 Commonwealth’s Brief at 6. We
therefore vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new sentencing
hearing.
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/8/2017
____________________________________________
2
The trial court did not address this issue because Appellant raises it for the
first time on appeal. We will not deem the issue waived, because it
implicates the legality of Appellant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Tobin,
89 A.3d 663, 669-70 (Pa. Super. 2014).
-2-