HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1750-2006
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MELISSA M. WILSON
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 1750 - 2006
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., March
, 2007
The defendant has filed the instant appeal from our order of February 1, 2007
which granted the Commonwealth's motion to modify the sentence imposed on January
9, 2007. The only issue raised on appeal is our alleged error in granting the
Commonwealth's untimely motion to modify the sentence without obtaining input from
the defendant. 1
On October 24,2006, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of
driving under the influence, highest rate of alcohol third or subsequent offense in
violation of Section 3802 ( c) of the Vehicle Code.2 Before the plea was entered, she was
specifically advised that the offense carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in
prison and a mandatory minimum fine of2500?
On January 9, 2007, we imposed the mandatory minimum jail sentence of one
year in prison. We note that we did so with reluctance. It had been almost ten years
since her prior offenses. Furthermore, she had made great strides in addressing the
reasons for her relapse to alcoholism. However, we had no choice. As we stated:
1 While the Notice of Appeal indicates that the appeal is from the sentencing order of January 9,2007, this
issue arises from our order February 1, 2007 granting the Commonwealth's Motion to Modify Sentence.
275 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3802(c).
3 See Guilty Plea Proceedings, October 24, 2006, p. 2 & 4
CP-21-CRIMINAL 1750 - 2006
It is what it is. I have no discretion. The fact that it's been so long
for the disqualifying events and the fact that she is serious about
her recovery, if! had the discretion, I would certainly exercise it in
her favor, but I don't.4
While we imposed the mandatory minimum prison sentence, we mistakenly
imposed a fine of only $1500 which was less than the mandatory $2500. Neither counsel
caught our error at that time. However, on January 26, 2007, the Commonwealth pointed
out our error in its motion to modify sentence. As with the prison sentence, we had no
discretion in the matter. Since we had no discretion, we saw no need to contact
defendant's counseLs We simply modified the sentence to increase the fine to $2500 as
required by statute.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, 1.
4 Sentencing Proceedings, January 9,2007, p. 3.
5 The fact that the Commonwealth's Motion was untimely is of no consequence. As the Superior Court
recently stated:
Generally, a court "may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry, if no appeal has
been taken." Commonwealth v. Klein, 566 Pa. 396, 781 A.2d 1133, 1135 (2001) (citing 42 Pa.
C.S.A. Section 5505). However, the court has "inherent powers to amend its records, to correct
mistakes of the clerk or other officer of the court, inadvertencies of counsel, or supply defects or
omissions in the record, even after the lapse of the [thirty day] term." Id. (citations omitted).
Included among these exceptional circumstances to Section 5505' s jurisdictional time limits is
where the court sua sponte corrects an illegal sentence originally imposed, even after the
defendant has begun serving the original sentence. Commonwealth v. Santone, 757 A.2d 963 (Pa.
Super. 2000) . . . See also In the Interest of K.R.B., 851 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. 2004) (finding an
amended order subject to Section 5505"s time limits because it added a penalty that was
discretionary, rather than mandatory, under statute).
Commonwealth v. Baio, 898 A.2d 1095, 1099 (Pa.Super. 2006).
2
CP-21-CRIMINAL 1750 - 2006
John Dailey, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Charles Mackin, Esquire
F or the Defendant
Victim Assistance Office
Adult Probation
Rebekah Finkey, IP Program Coordinator
:sld
3