Com. v. Pickel, G. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S04021-18
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                              :
    :
    :
    GERRIEL L. PICKEL                          :
    :
    Appellant                :   No. 955 MDA 2017
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 29, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
    CP-67-CR-0005246-2016
    BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:                               FILED MAY 08, 2018
    Appellant, Gerriel L. Pickel, appeals from the March 29, 2017
    Judgment of Sentence entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas
    following a non-jury trial.       The trial court convicted Appellant of Driving
    Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance (“DUI”) and Driving
    While Operating Privilege is Suspended or Revoked (“DWS”),1 and sentenced
    Appellant to a term of six months’ probation and a fine of $300 for DUI and
    $500 for DWS.        Because the $500 fine imposed for DWS constitutes an
    illegal sentence, we vacate and remand.
    The factual history is not relevant to our disposition.        Following
    sentencing, on April 9, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
    ____________________________________________
    1   75 Pa.C.S. §3802(a)(1) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a), respectively.
    J-S04021-18
    Sentence, which the trial court denied.     Appellant timely appealed.     Both
    Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
    Appellant raises a sole issue for our review:
    Whether [Appellant]’s $500 fine for [DWS] should be corrected
    where a $200 fine is mandated by statute and the $500 fine is
    unauthorized, the trial court clearly intended to impose a $200
    fine, and the trial court has now requested remand for correction
    of the fine.
    Appellant’s Brief at 4.
    Issues relating to the legality of a sentence are questions of law; our
    standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
    Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 
    105 A.3d 748
    , 750 (Pa. Super. 2014). It is
    well established that “if no statutory authorization exists for a particular
    sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction.” 
    Id.
     (quotation
    and citation omitted).
    Instantly, Appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously imposed an
    illegal $500 fine for DWS, instead of the $200 fine that was mandated by
    statute and discussed in court; the trial court and the Commonwealth agree.
    See Appellant’s Brief at 9-11; Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/19/2017, at 7-
    8; Commonwealth’s Letter Brief at 1-2. The trial court, Appellant, and the
    Commonwealth all request a remand of this case to correct the error. 
    Id.
    Section 1543 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides, in pertinent part:
    . . . [A]ny person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway or
    trafficway of this Commonwealth after the commencement of a
    suspension, revocation or cancellation of the operating privilege
    and before the operating privilege has been restored is guilty of
    -2-
    J-S04021-18
    a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to
    pay a fine of $200.
    75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).         Our Supreme Court has held that “[o]nce a trial
    court      has   determined     that   the   Commonwealth      has   established   the
    requirements of a legislatively mandated sentence, the trial court has no
    discretion to deviate its sentence from that which is defined by statute.”
    Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 
    744 A.2d 1280
    , 1282 (Pa. 2000) (citations
    omitted). Moreover, when a trial court imposes a sentence that is outside of
    the legal parameters prescribed by the applicable statute, the sentence is
    illegal and this Court should remand for correction. Id. at 1284.
    Upon convicting Appellant of DWS, the trial court was legislatively
    mandated to impose a fine of $200. Instead, the trial court stated on the
    record that it was going to impose a $200 fine for DWS, but then entered a
    Sentence Order that imposed a $500 fine. See N.T. Verdict, 3/29/17, at 3;
    Sentence Order dated 3/29/17. The trial court explained that “a seemingly
    clerical    error”   resulted     in   the    fine   being   incorrectly   transcribed,
    acknowledged that the fine was illegal, and requested that this Court
    remand the case for correction. Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/19/17, at 7-8.
    Accordingly, we conclude that the $500 fine imposed for DWS
    constitutes an illegal sentence and vacate that fine. We remand for the trial
    court to impose a $200 fine for DWS pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a).
    Judgment of Sentence vacated.              Case remanded with instructions.
    Jurisdiction relinquished.
    -3-
    J-S04021-18
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 5/8/2018
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 955 MDA 2017

Filed Date: 5/8/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/8/2018