Commonwealth v. Werner
| Docket Number | 2680 EDA 2022,J-S18003-23 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GLEN WERNER Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Glen Werner appeals the judgment of sentence entered by the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas on October 14, 2022. Werner claims the trial court erred in finding the probation office timely filed the Petition to Revoke Probation after he had already served over 180 days of the six-month sentence. We find Werner's claim without merit and hereby affirm.
For purposes of this appeal, the facts are not contested. On October 22, 2021, the trial court entered a three-year protection from abuse order against Werner which prohibited him from contacting a woman who claimed he was harassing her. See Order of Court, 12/10/2021, pg. 1. A month later, Werner was charged with violating the PFA order by continuing to harass, threaten, and track the woman.
On December 10, 2021, the trial court found Werner guilty of indirect criminal contempt and sentenced him to serve six months' probation. See Id. On June 9, 2022, the Probation Office filed a Petition to Revoke Defendant's Probation alleging Werner had failed to obtain the mental health evaluation as required by the probation order. See Petition for Revocation of Parole, 06/09/2022 pg 1. On June 14, 2022, the petition was amended to include other probation violations including contacting the woman protected by the PFA order. See Order of Court, 06/14/2022, at 1. On October 14, 2022, Werner was found guilty of violating probation and sentenced to serve three to six months' incarceration. See Order of Court, 10/14/2022, at 1.
On appeal, Werner argues the motion to revoke probation was untimely because it was filed after he had already served over 180 days of his six-month probation sentence.[1] Generally, a petition to revoke a defendant's probation or parole must be filed before the defendant has completed his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 860 A.2d 142, 145 (Pa. Super. 2004).
In his brief, Werner argues "the proper calculation to ascertain whether or not the Defendant had actually finished serving such sentence is the counting of the number of days from imposition of sentence to when revocation of probation was sought." Appellant's Brief, 03/24/2023, pg. 12-11. He further claims, "a sub-question exists as to what is actually meant by the word 'day'." Id. at 11.
While Werner's statement of the proper calculation is correct, it does not lead to the conclusion he desires. Properly re-stated, Werner's claim boils down to his belief that using the word "month" is equivalent to saying "30 days." We disagree.
Werner's claim asks us to interpret the trial courts judgment of sentence. This claim raises a question of law, therefore we review the trial court's decision de novo. See Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219, 1225 (Pa. 2013).
The parties and the trial court cite to various maxims of statutory construction; however, we conclude this issue is best expressed in simpler terms. What matters in interpreting a court order, such as a judgment of sentence, is the intent of the court as expressed in the language of the order. See Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548 (Pa. Super. 2019) (). To that end, when a court order utilizes the word "month" instead of "day" or "year," it intends to use calendar months as the measuring unit. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has explained the meaning of a calendar month:
A calendar month is not one of any given number of days throughout the entire year, but varies in length according to the Gregorian...
To continue reading
Request your trial