HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0909-2006
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CP-21-CR-0781-2006
CP-21-CR-0909-2006
SCOTT LEE PEIFFER
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
In this case, the defendant, Scott Peiffer, pled guilty to a count of escape and a count of
robbery in exchange for agreed upon sentences. On August 15,2006, the court imposed
sentences, in accordance with the plea agreement, of two to four years on the robbery count and
a sentence of one to two years on the escape charge to run consecutive to the sentence on
robbery. On August 21,2006, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence.
In his petition, he sought a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(2)(b). No hearing was
scheduled nor was his petition for reconsideration ever granted. On or about December 27,
2006, more than four months after his sentencing, the defendant filed an appeal.
The defendant's appeal is clearly out of time and should be quashed for that reason.
Notwithstanding, we will briefly touch on the issues raised by the defendant in his Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal. First, the defendant claims that the court erred in failing to
schedule a hearing with respect to his motion for reconsideration of sentence. Pa.R. Crim.P.
720(B)(2)(b) provides, in pertinent part:
The judge shall also determine whether a hearing
or argument on the [post-sentence] motion is
required and, if so, shall schedule a date or dates
certain for one or both.
A reading of the plain language of the rule makes it clear that the scheduling of a hearing is left
CP-21-CR-0781-2006
CP-21-CR-0909-2006
to the sound discretion of the trial court. Defendant's motion for reconsideration ignored,
completely, the rather generous nature of the plea bargain and alleged that we were legally
required to impose concurrent sentences on the escape and robbery charges because they were
part of a "crime spree." His rationale was that had he not failed to return to the Cumberland
County Prison while on work release on February 6,2006, he would not have robbed the Vartan
Bank in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, on February 8,2006. The fact that we
failed to grant a hearing on such a nonsensical assertion should not be surprising.
Second, the defendant contends that we committed "denial of post-conviction acts to
assistance of counsel on post-sentencing motion and appeal." It is not entirely clear what the
defendant means by this statement. To the extent that he asserts that he was denied
representation by counsel post-sentence, his assertion is clearly erroneous. The defendant was,
throughout, represented by the Public Defender's Office. In fact, a copy of his pro se motion for
reconsideration was forwarded, by the Clerk of Courts, to his public defender, Linda Hollinger,
Esquire. That she did not act on it is also not surprising.
Finally, the defendant contends that we failed to give him "notice of his post-sentence
rights." This allegation is simply wrong. The defendant was informed concerning his right of
appeal on August 1,2006, and again, in greater detail, on August 15,2006, he was informed of
his right to file a post-sentence motion. He was also told of his right to file an appeal to the
Superior Court and was advised concerning the questions he could raise on appeal. He was also
told of his right to counsel.
February 23, 2007
Kevin A. Hess, 1.
2
CP-21-CR-0781-2006
CP-21-CR-0909-2006
Jaime Keating, Esquire
First Assistant District Attorney
Scott Peiffer GT4995
SCI Camp Hill
P. O. Box 200
Camp Hil, P A 17001-0200
3