Commonwealth v. Wenzel
Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 417 WDA 2020,417 WDA 2020 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert Louis WENZEL, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Tina M. Fryling, Erie, for appellant.
Robert C. Greene, Assistant District Attorney, Warren, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant, Robert Louis Wenzel, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 1, 2019, in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the factual background of this matter as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, 5/1/20, at 2-3. Both the trial court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Before we address Appellant's issues on appeal, we must address whether this appeal is properly before us. As noted, the trial court sentenced Appellant on November 1, 2019. That sentencing order provided:
Judgment of Sentence, 11/1/19, at 1-2.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on November 12, 2019.1 On November 19, 2019, while Appellant's post-sentence motion was pending, the trial court amended Appellant's November 1, 2019 judgment of sentence sua sponte .2 First Amended Judgment of Sentence, 11/19/19. In the amended judgment of sentence, the trial court removed 119 days of credit for time served. Id. at 1. On December 12, 2019, the trial court again amended Appellant's judgment of sentence sua sponte and stated Appellant was required to spend ninety days of the four-month restrictive portion of his sentence in the Warren County Prison, and house arrest would be enforced by electronic monitoring. Second Amended Judgment of Sentence, 12/12/19.
On February 14, 2020, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion. On March 10, 2020, Appellant filed an appeal in which he purported to appeal from the February 14, 2020 order denying his post-sentence motion. This Court has held that in cases where the trial court amends the judgment of sentence during the period it maintains jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5505, the direct appeal lies from the amended judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Garzone , 993 A.2d 1245, 1254 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2010) (emphasis added). However, even though Appellant filed an appeal from the order denying his post-sentence motion, and despite the trial court filing amendments to the November 1, 2019 judgment of sentence, we conclude that under the circumstances presented herein, we are not precluded from addressing the merits of Appellant's appeal. Our rationale is set forth in detail below.
As noted, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on November 12, 2019, following the imposition of sentence on November 1, 2019. The post-sentence motion tolled the thirty-day appeal period. See Commonwealth v. Capaldi , 112 A.3d 1242, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2015) ( )(citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2) ; Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) () ). Although the trial court had the authority to file the intervening First Amended Judgment of Sentence and Second Amended Judgment of Sentence,3 we conclude that the amended sentences had no negative impact on Appellant's timely post-sentence motion or appeal.
The First Amended Judgment of Sentence was nearly identical to the original November 1, 2019 judgment of sentence and provided as follows:
First Amended Judgment of Sentence, 11/19/19, at 1-2.
Similarly, the Second Amended Judgment of Sentence entered on December 12, 2019, was almost identical to the original November 1, 2019 judgment of sentence. It provided as follows:
Second Amended Judgment of Sentence, 12/12/19, at 1-2.
Indeed, the First and Second Amended Judgments of Sentence retained the November 1, 2019 date of imposition; they amended nothing other than the 119 days of time credit and directed ninety days of incarceration in the county prison followed by electronic home monitoring. If the trial court intended the amended judgments of sentence to vitiate and replace the original November 1, 2019 judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Schmidt
... ... Because this amendment did not affect the sentence from which ... Appellant filed his post-sentence motion, the post-sentence ... motion tolled the appeal period and Appellant's notice of ... appeal was timely filed. Commonwealth v. Wenzel, 248 ... A.3d 540, 545 (Pa.Super. 2021), appeal denied, ... ___Pa.___, 264 A.3d 753 (2021) ... [4] As discussed above in our waiver ... analysis, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Heindl
... ... action. See N.T. Contempt Hearing, 11/16/20, at ... 40-41. This failure to advise Appellant of her appellate ... rights constitutes a breakdown in the operation of the court; ... as such, we will not quash the instant appeal as untimely ... Commonwealth v. Wenzel, 248 A.3d 540, 547 (Pa ... Super. 2021) ... Within ... her brief, Appellant raises the following claims: ... 1. Did the trial court err and/or violate the Appellant's ... due process rights by failing or refusing to hold a hearing ... regarding the ... ...
- Failor v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
-
Commonwealth v. Faiola, 264 MDA 2021
... ... sentence on September 3, 2019.[3] ... In ... cases where the trial court amends the judgment of sentence, ... the direct appeal lies from the amended judgment of sentence ... - not the prior erroneous sentence. Commonwealth v ... Wenzel, 248 A.3d 540, 545 (Pa. Super. 2021). Appellant ... did not file post-sentence motions, but rather, a notice of ... appeal. That appeal - filed on September 16, 2019 and 13 days ... after the trial court issued its amended judgment of sentence ... - was timely. Thus, ... ...
-
Witness
...medical expert was unaware of commonality at time he formed his medical opinions. PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth v. Wenzel , 2021 PA Super 44, 248 A.3d 540 (2021). A chiropractor was not qualified to testify as an expert witness in a trial for resisting arrest or other law enforcement; though th......