Commonwealth v. Muhammed
Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 1087 EDA 2018,1087 EDA 2018 |
Citation | 219 A.3d 1207 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Yahya Asaad MUHAMMED, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Katherine E. Ernst, Public Defender, Norristown, for appellant.
Robert M. Falin, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant Yahya Asaad Muhammed appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after he pled guilty to criminal trespass.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's restitution award. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are well known to the parties, and we need not restate them here. Briefly, the trial court summarized the procedural history of this matter as follows:
Trial Ct. Op., 6/12/18 at 2-3.
On March 20, 2018, the trial court docketed Appellant's pro se motion seeking arrest of judgment and withdrawal of his guilty plea. On April 10, 2018, the trial court docketed Appellant's pro se notice of appeal, in which he included a statement of errors complained of on appeal.4 The trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion on May 22, 2018.5 Thereafter, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion asserting that Appellant's claims were meritless. On August 20, 2018, this Court issued an order directing Appellant's trial counsel, Vanessa L. Bellino, Esq., to enter her appearance on Appellant's behalf.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal: "Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err by awarding restitution that is speculative, unsupported by the record, and does not even relate to the crime for which [Appellant] pleaded guilty?" Appellant's Brief at 2. Appellant first argues that "the bulk of the items contained within the restitution order were not lost or damaged as a direct result of the crime for which [Appellant] pleaded guilty." Id. at 15. Second, Appellant asserts that "the restitution order awarded the victim more than the cash equivalent of the property lost due to the crime." Id. at 19. Third, Appellant contends that the order was "speculative and unsupported by the record." Id. at 26.
Our review of Appellant's claims depends on the nature of the issue being raised. It is well settled that a challenge to the legality of a sentence raises a question of law. Commonwealth v. Smith , 956 A.2d 1029, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc ). In reviewing this type of claim, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Childs , 63 A.3d 323, 325 (Pa. Super. 2013). "An illegal sentence must be vacated[.]" Commonwealth v. Ramos , 197 A.3d 766, 769 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, we have explained that "a criminal defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence, so the fact that the illegality was a term of his plea bargain is of no legal significance." Commonwealth v. Rivera , 154 A.3d 370, 381 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc ) (citation and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied , 642 Pa. 121, 169 A.3d 1072 (2017). Moreover, "a challenge to the legality of the sentence can never be waived and may be raised by this Court sua sponte. " Commonwealth v. Wolfe , 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).
In contrast, a defendant does not have an absolute right to pursue a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. See Commonwealth v. Lamonda , 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc ). Rather, before reaching the merits of such claims, we must determine whether (1) the appeal is timely; (2) the defendant preserved his issues; (3) the defendant included a concise statement of reasons for the discretionary sentence claim in his brief; and (4) the sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code. See Commonwealth v. Corley , 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). If a defendant invokes this Court's jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of a sentence, we review a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Smith , 206 A.3d 551, 567 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Section 1106 of the Crimes Code governs the imposition of restitution as part of a sentence and provides, in relevant part:
18 Pa.C.S. § 1106.
Commonwealth v. Weir , 201 A.3d 163, 172 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted), appeal granted , 14 WAL 2019, 2019 WL 2590591 (Pa. filed June 25, 2019).
In sum, "a challenge to the legality of sentence is presented when the defendant claims that the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose restitution because the Commonwealth failed to establish one or more of the requirements of section 1106(a)." Id. at 172 (citation omitted). "Conversely, where the Commonwealth has established each element of § 1106(a), i.e. , the victim suffered loss to person or property directly caused by the specific crime committed by the defendant, a claim that the restitution order is excessive implicates the discretionary aspects of sentencing." Id. at 174 (citations omitted); see Commonwealth v. Holmes , 155 A.3d 69, 78 (Pa. Super. 2017) ( ).
Initially, we observe that the trial court accepted Appellant's negotiated plea and imposed sentence on March 5, 2018. See N.T. Guilty Plea Hr'g, 3/5/18, at 13. As part of the sentence, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay court costs plus a restitution amount that would be determined at a future hearing. Id. at 13-14. However, the trial court did not specify a restitution amount or payment method. See id. ; see also Sentencing Order, 3/5/18, at 2.
Id. (citations omitted and emphasis added).
Here, as in Ramos , the trial court "imposed a generalized, open-ended...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Stanley
... ... Commonwealth v. Childs , 63 A.3d 323, 325 (Pa. Super. 2013). "An illegal sentence must be vacated." Commonwealth v. Ramos , 197 A.3d 766, 769 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Commonwealth v. Yahya Asaad Muhammed , 219 A.3d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2019) (brackets omitted). Additionally, "a challenge to the legality of the sentence can never be waived and may be raised by this Court sua sponte ." Commonwealth v. Wolfe , 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa. Super. 2014)."[A]n offense created by an unconstitutional law is ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Ispache
... ... See Commonwealth v. Alston , 212 A.3d 526, 528 (Pa.Super. 2019). Importantly, a challenge to the legality of sentence can never be waived and may be raised by the Superior Court sua sponte ... See Commonwealth v. Muhammed , 219 A.3d 1207, 1211 (Pa.Super. 2019). We have previously held that "when an appellant's offenses straddle the effective dates of Subchapters H and I of SORNA" and "the jury did not specifically find the date of the offenses," the application of Subchapter H is unconstitutional, as it "mirrors the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Mulkin
... ... Here, "the court's order at the initial sentencing, postponing the imposition of restitution until a later date, [fails] to meet the criteria of the restitution statute and taints the entire sentence." Commonwealth v. Muhammed , 219 A.3d 1207, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Ramos , supra at 770 ). Accordingly, the sentencing order is illegal, the entire sentence must 228 A.3d 920 be vacated, and this matter must be remanded for resentencing. See Ramos, supra at 770-71 ; Muhammed , supra at 1213.During resentencing, the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. McCollum
... ... Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) ; Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ). 4 Appellant retained private counsel in September 2018. 5 While " pro se filings submitted by counseled defendants are generally treated as legal nullities[,]" Commonwealth v. Muhammed , 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted), this Court must docket pro se notices of appeal, even when the defendant is represented by counsel. Commonwealth v. Williams , 151 A.3d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016). 6 Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). In lieu of filing a Pa.R.A.P ... ...