Com. v. Luczak, J. ( 2016 )

J-S07024-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JUSTIN LEE LUCZAK
Appellant No. 1217 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 27, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-19-CR-0000014-2010
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2016
Justin Lee Luczak appeals from the Judgment of Sentence entered on
March 27, 2012, in the Court of Common pleas of Columbia County,
following his conviction on charges of retail theft1 and a “drug related
offense.” Specifically, Luczak appeals from the order entered on June 22,
2015, denying without a hearing his motion to modify sentence, nunc pro
tunc. All parties and the trial court agree that Luczak is entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand this matter for correction of
the typographic error.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3929. It is unclear what the drug related offense was.
J-S07024-16
Pursuant to his conviction on the above stated charges, Luczak was
sentenced to a term of 24 months of state intermediate punishment (IP) to
be followed by 12 months of probation. See N.T. Sentencing, 3/27/2012 at
1-2. However, the written sentencing order indicated Luczak was to serve
24 months of IP and followed by 24 months of probation. This typographic
error went unnoticed until Luczak was arrested on other charges and
detained based upon a claim of state probation violation. Luczak sought
nunc pro tunc correction of the original sentence. However, the trial court
denied Luczak’s motion without a hearing. Subsequently, the trial court
realized its error, and now asks that the order be reversed and the matter
remanded for correction of the sentencing order found in the certified
record. The Commonwealth has reviewed this matter and agrees that
Luczak is entitled to this relief.
We note that the trial court has the inherent power to correct obvious
mistakes and typographic error, even outside the 30-day period proscribed
by statute.
Trial courts have the power to alter or modify a criminal
sentence within thirty days after entry, if no appeal is taken. 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 5505;[2] Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 433 Pa.
____________________________________________
2
Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon
notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30
days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any
term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or
allowed.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S07024-16
Super. 111, 639 A.2d 1235, 1238 (1994). Generally, once the
thirty-day period is over, the trial court loses the power to alter
its orders. Quinlan, 639 A.2d at 1238. When an appeal is
taken, the trial court has no jurisdiction to modify its sentence.
Id. We note, however, that the time constraint imposed by
section 5505 does not affect the inherent powers of the court to
modify a sentence in order to “amend records, to correct
mistakes of court officers or counsel's inadvertencies, or to
supply defects or omissions in the record....” Id., at 1239.
Therefore, where the mistake is patent and obvious, the court
has the power to correct it even though the 30-day appeal
period has expired. Commonwealth v. Rohrer, 719 A.2d 1078,
1080 (Pa. Super. 1998). It is also well-established that where a
showing of fraud or another circumstance “so grave or
compelling as to constitute ‘extraordinary causes justifying
intervention by the court,’ ” then a court may open or vacate its
order after the 30-day period has expired. Cardwell v. Chrysler
Fin. Corp., 804 A.2d 18, 22 (Pa. Super. 2002).
Commonwealth v. Walters, 814 A.2d 253, 255-56 (Pa. Super. 2002).
The trial court had the inherent power to correct the typographic error
in the first instance, but mistakenly declined to do so. Accordingly, the trial
court has asked the matter be remanded so that the error may be corrected.
Order denying motion to modify sentence nunc pro tunc reversed.
Matter is remanded to the trial court for correction of typographic error.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
42 Pa.C.S § 5505
-3-
J-S07024-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/9/2016
-4-