Com. v. Hart, C.

J-S75038-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER HART,
Appellant No. 1480 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered April 2, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0004719-2009
and CP-39-CR-0000563-2010
BEFORE: ALLEN, LAZARUS, and MUNDY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2014
Christopher Hart, (“Appellant”), is presently incarcerated because on
August 13, 2010, he pled guilty to a multitude of counts of burglary and
conspiracy to commit burglary. On October 11, 2010, Appellant was
sentenced to an aggregate term of not less than six (6) years nor more than
twenty (20) years in prison.
Approximately three and a half years later, on March 17, 2014,
Appellant filed a pro se “motion for time credit and corrected commitment.”
On April 2, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying and dismissing
Appellant’s motion, noting that it lacked authority to act on it. Appellant
filed a timely appeal on April 23, 2014. Appellant and the trial court have
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant presents a single issue:
J-S75038-14
Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant’s] Motion for
Time Credit and Corrected Commitment where it concluded that
it did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion?
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
Appellant specifically asserts that “the lower court owed [Appellant]
credit for time spent in custody (from September 11, 2009 to October 16,
2009) pursuant to the initial burglary charge in this case.” Id. at 9. Our
review of the certified record – particularly the thirty (30) Lehigh County
Sentencing Sheets completed and appended to the October 11, 2010
sentencing order – reflects that a box was checked on each sheet which
reads “and credit be given you, as required by law, for all time spent in
custody, as a result of these criminal charges for which sentence is being
imposed.” Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Appellant was
“awarded … credit time in these cases” and Appellant “is actually challenging
the computation of his sentences by the Department of Corrections (DOC)
…” Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/14, at 2. We further agree with the trial
court’s reasoning:
When a trial court sentences a defendant to state
incarceration, the computation of the defendant’s sentence,
including allowable credit time, is left to the DOC. See Barndt
v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2006); Bright v. Board of Probation and Parole, 831 A.2d
775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9762.
If one assumes that [Appellant] was accurate in
contending that the DOC incorrectly calculated his credit time,
this court lacked jurisdiction to remedy any defect. As the
Superior Court has noted:
-2-
J-S75038-14
If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an
erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of
Corrections (the precursor to the DOC), then the
appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action
in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s
computation.
Commonwealth v. Perry, 386 Pa.Super. 534, 537-38, 563
A.2d 511, 512-13 (1989) (internal citations omitted). See
Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 413 Pa.Super. 42, 604 A.2d 723
(1992) (explaining the proper course of action for challenging
the computation of a sentence by state authorities).
Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/14, at 2-3.
Given the foregoing, we affirm the trial court order denying and
dismissing Appellant’s motion for time credit and corrected commitment.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2014
-3-