Com. v. Sholtis, R.

J-S25024-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RICHARD DANIEL SHOLTIS, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 1515 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 8, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0002045-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 30, 2018
Richard Sholtis, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after
preemptively revoked his automatic parole for failing a drug test while he was
incarcerated on this sentence. He contends the court abused its discretion by
increasing his minimum term of incarceration from three months to twelve
months for conduct for which he was never criminally charged. We conclude
we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and dismiss.
Sholtis pled guilty to one count of retail theft and received a sentence
of three to twenty-three months in prison. When the court imposed the
sentence, it granted Sholtis automatic parole after he served his minimum
sentence. While serving this sentence, Sholtis tested positive for a controlled
substance.
J-S25024-18
The court held a parole revocation hearing on August 8, 2017.1 The court
revoked Sholtis’s automatic parole, and imposed a minimum sentence of
twelve months in prison.2
Sholtis filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the sentence imposed
was unduly harsh and excessive. In the alternative, he asked the court to
increase his maximum sentence to twenty-four months, in order to transfer
him to a state prison, where he felt he could receive necessary treatment. He
did not assert that the court erred in revoking his parole before he was under
parole supervision. The court scheduled a hearing on Sholtis’s motion for
September 28, 2017, or 51 days after the court imposed sentence on the
violation.3
“A motion to modify sentence imposed after a revocation shall be filed
within 10 days of the date of imposition. The filing of a motion to modify
sentence will not toll the 30-day appeal period.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(E). Failure
____________________________________________
1 The transcript of this hearing is not in the certified record, despite Sholtis’s
request for all transcripts in this matter. Sholtis has categorized his claim as
one challenging the discretionary aspects of sentence. Furthermore, he does
not cite to the revocation transcript in his brief. We therefore conclude this
transcript is unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal.
2Sholtis concedes this twelve-month minimum is within the standard range
of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines. See Appellant’s Brief, at 5.
3 The parties’ briefs and other documents in the certified record indicate this
hearing occurred on September 28, 2017. However, the transcript itself is
dated October 28, 2017. As there is no indication that the court held two
hearings on Sholtis’s motion, we will treat this as a typographical error. For
clarity’s sake, we will refer to the transcript as it is labeled.
-2-
J-S25024-18
to file an appeal within the 30-day appeal period deprives this Court of
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 721
A.2d 798, 799 (Pa. Super. 1998). Sholtis filed his appeal on October 10, 2017,
63 days after the court imposed sentence. We thus lack jurisdiction over
Sholtis’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/30/2018
-3-