Com. v. Daniels, R.

J-S23021-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RACQUEL DANIELS :
:
Appellant : No. 1725 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 3, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0010305-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 06, 2023
Racquel Daniels appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after
he violated probation. The parties and the trial court agree that the case
should be remanded to determine Daniels’ eligibility for the Recidivism Risk
Reduction Incentive (RRRI) program. After review, we vacate and remand.
In 2019, Daniels received a three-year probationary sentence following
his guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver. 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
While on probation, Daniels pled guilty to other crimes; this violated his
probation. The trial court held a violation hearing and sentenced Daniels to
five to ten years of imprisonment. The court did not determine if Daniels was
RRRI eligible. Daniels moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Daniels timely appealed. He argues that his sentence is illegal because
the trial court failed to find him RRRI eligible and failed to impose an RRRI
minimum sentence. Daniels’ Brief at 3–11.
J-S23021-23
The trial court acknowledges that Daniels’ sentence is illegal because it
did not determine his RRRI eligibility. Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/22, at 11–
12. The Commonwealth agrees that remand is appropriate. Commonwealth’s
Brief at 5–6.
A challenge to the failure to order an RRRI minimum sentence implicates
sentencing legality. Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 249 A.3d 903, 912 (Pa.
Super. 2021). It is a question of law, for which we use a de novo standard of
review and a plenary scope of review. Commonwealth v. Perzel, 291 A.3d
38, 45 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).
In imposing a sentence, a court is required to determine if the defendant
is eligible for RRRI. Finnecy, 249 A.3d at 912 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 9756(b.1)); accord 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a). This depends on whether the
defendant meets the statutory definition of “eligible person.” Finnecy, 249
A.3d at 913–14 (citing 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503). The failure to make this
determination renders the sentence illegal. See Commonwealth v.
Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 874–75 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Here, the trial court did not determine whether Daniels is an “eligible
person.” 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4503. Therefore, his sentence is illegal. Robinson,
7 A.3d at 875. Accordingly, we vacate Daniels’ judgment of sentence and
remand for the trial court to determine whether Daniels is RRRI eligible and,
if he is eligible, to impose the RRRI minimum sentence. Id.Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2-
J-S23021-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2023
-3-