Com. v. Beatty, C.

J-S33013-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHARLES BEATTY :
:
Appellant : No. 2987 EDA 2019
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 19, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0003121-2008
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 2020
Appellant, Charles Beatty, appeals from the Order dismissing his Petition
filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
After careful review, we affirm the PCRA court Order and direct the court on
remand to correct an error in the Sentencing Order.
On May 23, 2008, Appellant pleaded guilty to two firearms charges.1
The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 6 to 12 months’ incarceration
followed by two years’ reporting probation. Appellant served his minimum
sentence, and the court released him on parole.
On June 3, 2010, and June 25, 2012, Appellant pleaded guilty to
offenses in separate criminal matters that occurred while he was on parole for
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1Carrying a Firearm Without a License and Carrying a Firearm on the Public
Streets of Philadelphia. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106 and 6108, respectively.
J-S33013-20
the 2008 convictions. As a result of the 2010 and 2012 convictions, the lower
court held a Violation of Parole/Probation (“VOP”) Hearing on December 3,
2012. The judge stated on the record: “I’m going to revoke your probation,
and I’m going to sentence you to three to six years and that’s consecutive to
whatever you’re serving.” PCRA Ct. Op., filed 5/5/20, at 5 (unpaginated)
(citing N.T. VOP Hearing, 12/3/12, at 11). However, the signed VOP
Sentencing Order states that the court revoked Appellant’s parole and does
not mention probation.
Appellant’s VOP Judgment of Sentence became final on January 10,
2013, following the denial of post-sentence Motions. Appellant timely filed the
instant PCRA Petition, and, following the appointment of counsel, an amended
Petition on February 22, 2019, challenging the legality of his sentence.2 The
court dismissed Appellant’s Petition on September 19, 2019, after providing
him with notice under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907. Appellant timely filed a Notice of
Appeal, and both Appellant and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant argues that the VOP court’s December 2012 sentence is illegal
because the signed VOP Sentencing Order states that the court revoked his
parole, and, therefore, the court should have sentenced him to the balance of
his back-time for the May 2008 convictions instead of a new term of
incarceration. Appellant’s Br. at 7, 14-16.
____________________________________________
2 The record contains no indication why there was a six-year delay between
Appellant’s timely filing of the PCRA Petition and the court’s appointment of
counsel.
-2-
J-S33013-20
The PCRA court found Appellant’s claim meritless. PCRA Ct. Op., filed
5/5/20, at 5-6. The court reasoned that the discrepancy between the VOP
Hearing transcript and Sentencing Order was “clearly a typographical error.”
Id. at 5. Instead, the court looked to the VOP Hearing transcript to discern
that the VOP court intended to revoke Appellant’s probation, not his parole.
Id. The PCRA court concluded that the VOP court legally sentenced Appellant
following its probation revocation.3 Id. at 6.
We review the denial of a PCRA Petition to determine whether the record
supports the PCRA court’s findings and whether its Order is otherwise free of
legal error. Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 803 (Pa. 2014). To be
eligible for PCRA relief, the petitioner must plead and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that his sentence of conviction resulted from
one of the issues enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). Here, Appellant
invokes Section 9543(a)(2)(vii), arguing that his three- to six-year sentence
exceeded the lawful maximum following parole revocation. Appellant’s Br. at
13.
Additionally, we recognize that in Pennsylvania, after sentencing, the
trial court retains “the inherent power to correct errors in its records or orders
so they speak ‘the truth,’ and thereby reflect what actually took place in
judicial proceedings[,]” even outside the 30 day period permitted by 42
Pa.C.S. § 5505. Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219, 1227 (Pa. 2013)
____________________________________________
3We note that Appellant does not challenge the legality of the three- to six-
year sentence imposed following probation revocation.
-3-
J-S33013-20
(citations omitted). “Correctible errors are those determined to be ‘patent and
obvious mistakes.’” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). A sentencing
order is subject to later correction when it contains a correctible error.
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 766 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(remanding to correct a sentencing Order for defendant to serve convictions
concurrently). See Commonwealth v. Young, 695 A.2d 414, 420 (Pa.
Super. 1997) (correcting an error on the face of the judgment of sentence and
reversing PCRA court’s grant of relief because “the PCRA court should have
[instead] corrected the clerical error”).
In the present case, after our review of the VOP sentencing transcript
and the written VOP Sentencing Order, we agree with the PCRA court that the
reference to “parole revoked” in the VOP Sentencing Order is a patent and
obvious mistake as the VOP court clearly and unambiguously declared on the
record that it revoked Appellant’s probation. Because the VOP court revoked
Appellant’s probation, Appellant did not and could not carry his burden under
the PCRA to plead and prove that his sentence exceeds the lawful maximum.
Therefore, we agree with the PCRA court that Appellant’s claim is meritless,
and find no error in its Order dismissing Appellant’s Petition. We remand to
the lower court for the limited purpose of correcting the Sentencing Order to
reflect probation revocation.
Order affirmed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-S33013-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/3/2020
-5-