Com. v. Wilson, K.

J-S14010-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KENNETH L. WILSON :
:
Appellant : No. 1009 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 25, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-65-CR-0003983-2019
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: AUGUST 8, 2022
Kenneth L. Wilson appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his convictions for tampering with public records or information, theft
by deception, theft of services, and tampering with records or identification.1
He claims that the trial court erred in its calculation of credit for time served.
We affirm.
Wilson pled guilty on July 24, 2020, to the above-referenced offenses.
At sentencing, defense counsel asked for credit for time served. He suggested
to the court that credit for Wilson began on August 29, 2019, when his
$50,000 unsecured bond was changed to a monetary bond. N.T., Sentencing,
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4911(a)(3), 3922(a)(1), 3926(a)(1), and 4104(a),
respectively.
J-S14010-22
5/25/21, at 4.2 He stated that Wilson was entitled to credit from August 29,
2019 to July 27, 2020, when his bond reverted to unsecured. Id. The
Commonwealth countered that Wilson was not entitled to credit for time
served from August 2019 to April 8, 2020. Id. at 18. It argued during that
period Wilson was serving a sentence for another case in Bucks and
Montgomery County and therefore any credit for that time went to those
sentences. Id.3 The Commonwealth also stated that Wilson had served a
sentence in Burlington, New Jersey, but maintained that any credit for that
period had already been applied. Id. at 20. It argued that “[t]he only time he
has credit for is the date that they released him to wait for the sheriffs. It can’t
be more than two weeks.” Id. at 21.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of two to four years’
incarceration followed by a consecutive term of three years reporting
probation. It stated “[a]s far as the prior credit for time served, the
Department of Corrections will calculate and give [Wilson] credit for whatever
time he’s entitled to.” Id. at 27. On the sentencing order, the court noted that
the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) should determine credit for time
served.
____________________________________________
2Wilson’s original sentencing hearing was scheduled for October 22, 2020,
but Wilson failed to appear.
3Bucks County sentenced Wilson on August 1, 2019, to 11 months and 29
days to 20 months and 29 days followed by four years of reporting probation.
N.T., Sentencing, at 19. He was granted parole on April 8, 2020. Id.
-2-
J-S14010-22
Wilson filed a post-sentence motion, arguing that he was entitled to
credit for time served from August 29, 2019 to July 24, 2020. See Defendant’s
Motion for Sentence Reconsideration, filed 6/4/2021. He argued that the court
erred in ordering the DOC to calculate the credit. He also argued that the court
“must have assessed credit for time served at the sentencing and placed the
days of credit on the sentencing order.” Id. at ¶ 11.
At a hearing on the motion, defense counsel argued that Wilson was
entitled to credit for two periods, one of 334 days and another of 79 days.
N.T., Post-Sentence Motion Hearing, 8/5/21, at 7.4 The 334 days was for the
period from the date his bail bond became secured to the date it reverted to
being unsecured, that is, August 29, 2019 to July 27, 2020. Id. at 5. The 79
days was for the time from his incarceration for the instant case until the post-
sentence motion hearing, that is, from May 19, 2021 to August 5, 2021. Id.
at 7. He also argued that the court should determine his credit for time served,
not the DOC. Id. at 4.
The Commonwealth argued that Wilson was entitled to credit from
August 29, 2019 to September 11, 2019, and from May 19, 2021, to the date
of the hearing. Id. at 10, 13. It argued that if the court gave Wilson credit for
time outside of these periods, it would be granting double credit to Wilson.
Id. at 13. It also argued that Wilson was never in prison for the instant case
____________________________________________
4 The trial court notes that Wilson’s bond changed to unsecured on July 24,
2020, not July 27. See Rule 1925(a) Opinion (“1925(a) Op.”), filed 10/6/21,
at 2 n.1. This date change would amount to 331 days instead of the 334 days
suggested by defense counsel. See id.
-3-
J-S14010-22
until May 19, 2021, when he was released from prison for a separate sentence
he was serving. Id. at 14. The Commonwealth argued that Wilson was not
entitled to credit against the sentence in this case for September 11, 2019 to
April 8, 2020, because that time was counted against two other sentences.
Id.
The trial court determined that Wilson was entitled to 142 days of credit
for time served. Id. at 23. It first subtracted 271 days from defense counsel’s
334 days, amounting to 63 days of credit. Id. at 22.5 The 271 days included
the dates of April 8, 2020 to January 21, 2021. Id.6 The parties agreed that
Wilson was not incarcerated during that time. Id. at 20. The court then added
79 days of credit for time served which included his time in prison on the
instant case to the date of the hearing on the post-sentence motion, May 19,
2021 to August 5, 2021. Id. at 22. The court entered a sentencing order
reflecting 142 days of credit for time served. This timely appeal followed.
Wilson raises the following issue:
Whether the trial court erred by granting in part [Wilson’s]
post-sentence motion for sentence reconsideration, for the
____________________________________________
5 The trial court maintains that it erred by subtracting 271 days. Instead, it
stated that it should have only subtracted 108 days, April 8, 2020, to July 24,
2020. See 1925(a) Op. at 2 n.2. It states that this changes the credit for time
served to 223 days. We are unable to determine from the record whether the
trial court is correct.
6 A calculation of these dates amounts to 288 days instead of the 271
determined by the trial court. Additionally, the date of January 21, 2021, is
when Wilson was picked up by the State of New Jersey for a separate offense.
He remained incarcerated from that date. See N.T., Post-Sentence Motion
Hearing, at 17.
-4-
J-S14010-22
reason that [Wilson] was entitled to receive 311 days credit
for time served, rather than the 142 days credit that was
ordered?
Wilson’s Br. at 7 (answer omitted).
Wilson contends that the trial court erred in its calculation of credit for
time served. He claims that instead of 142 days of credit, the court should
have found that he was entitled to 311 days. Wilson’s claim presents a
challenge to the legality of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Martz, 42
A.3d 1142, 1145 (Pa.Super. 2012). Our scope of review is plenary, and we
must determine whether the court erred as a matter of law. Id.Section 9760 of the Sentencing Code governs the right to credit for time
served. It provides in part:
After reviewing the information submitted under section
9737 (relating to report of outstanding charges and
sentences) the court shall give credit as follows:
(1) Credit against the maximum term and any minimum
term shall be given to the defendant for all time spent in
custody as a result of the criminal charge for which a prison
sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which
such a charge is based. Credit shall include credit for time
spent in custody prior to trial, during trial, pending
sentence, and pending the resolution of an appeal.
***
(4) If the defendant is arrested on one charge and later
prosecuted on another charge growing out of an act or acts
that occurred prior to his arrest, credit against the maximum
term and any minimum term of any sentence resulting from
such prosecution shall be given for all time spent in custody
under the former charge that has not been credited against
another sentence.
-5-
J-S14010-22
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(1), (4). A defendant is not entitled to “receiv[e] credit
against more than one sentence for the same time served,” i.e., double credit.
Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super. 1996)).
Thus, “[c]redit is not given . . . for a commitment by reason of a separate and
distinct offense.” Commonwealth v. Richard, 150 A.3d 504, 520-521
(Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Wilson alleges that he is entitled to 311 days of credit. This time includes
his time in Westmoreland County Prison during two periods: the first from
August 27, 2019 to April 8, 2020, and the second from May 13, 2021 to August
5, 2021. This second period includes the time he was awaiting extradition from
New Jersey to the day of the hearing on the post-sentence motion.7 We
address the contested periods separately.
August 27, 2019 – April 8, 2020
The trial court concluded that Wilson had already received credit for this
period against at least one other sentence. See 1925(a) Op. at 5. The court
noted that docket sheets from Bucks County showed that on August 1, 2019,
Bucks County sentenced Wilson to jail in a separate case and gave Wilson
credit for time served starting from April 10, 2019. Id. at 4. The minimum jail
term for that sentence expired on April 9, 2020. See id. The trial court added
____________________________________________
7 The docket sheets for Wilson’s cases in Bucks County and Montgomery
County are not in the certified record. However, the parties do not dispute the
court’s descriptions of the sentences imposed by those counties or the credit
given against those sentences. As such, we will not find waiver of this issue.
-6-
J-S14010-22
that Wilson was also serving a jail sentence from Montgomery County that
was concurrent with the Bucks County sentence. Id. at 4-5.
Wilson was thus serving sentences from Montgomery and Bucks
Counties during the contested time from August 27, 2019 to April 8, 2020,
and received credit against one or both of those sentences. His commitment
during that period was because of the Montgomery County and Bucks County
sentences and not due to the instant case. Wilson is not entitled to additional
credit for this time. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9760(4).
May 13, 2021 to August 5, 2021
Wilson alleges that on May 13, 2021, he “completed his sentence in the
State of New Jersey and remained [in prison] on a Westmoreland County
detainer.” Wilson’s Br. at 12. He argues that he should have been granted 85
days of credit from May 13, 2021 to August 5, 2021, the time during which he
contends he was “awaiting extradition from the State of New Jersey to the
Sentence Reconsideration Hearing.” Id.
At the reconsideration hearing, Wilson argued that he was entitled to 79
days of credit, beginning from May 19, 2021. The trial court agreed and gave
him credit. Wilson did not argue that the time should have begun earlier, on
May 13. Nothing in the record supports Wilson’s contention that his sentence
in New Jersey ended on May 13 as opposed to May 19, and the Commonwealth
does not agree that his New Jersey sentence ended on May 13. We thus cannot
reach this issue.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7-
J-S14010-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/8/2022
-8-