HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1139-2003; 1197-2003COMMONWEALTH
VS.
MICAH WINSTON MILLER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CP-21-CR-1139-2003
CP-21-CR-1197-2003
OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
On January 20, 2004, the defendant, Micah Miller, tendered pleas of guilty to two counts
of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. These pleas were entered in satisfaction of other
pending charges against Mr. Miller and with the understanding that the Commonwealth was
agreeable to a sentence of two and one-half to five years on the count docketed to CP-21-CR-
1139-2003, and to a consecutive sentence of two to four years at CP-21-CR-1197-2003. It was
further understood that charges pending against Mr. Miller would not be forwarded to federal
authorities for prosecution and that felony charges pending against the defendant's co-defendant
would be reduced to misdemeanors. Finally, the Commonwealth waived the mandatory
minimum sentences which were applicable in the case. At the time of the guilty plea, the
defendant indicated that he understood the sentences which would be imposed and had no
questions about the matter. N.T. 7. On March 25, 2004, the defendant was sentenced in
accordance with the plea agreement. He has since appealed.
On June 11, 2004, we issued an order directing that the defendant file, within fourteen
days, a concise statement of matters complained of on his appeal. As of the date of this writing,
the defendant's statement has not yet been filed. We are satisfied, therefore, that any issues
which the defendant seeks to raise have not been preserved for appeal. See Com. v. Lord, 719
A.2d 306 (Pa. 1999).
Without the defendant's statement, we hesitate to guess as to the issues which the
defendant may seek to raise on appeal. Nonetheless, we will briefly review the only question
which we know to have arisen during Mr. Miller's guilty plea and sentencing.
Mr. Miller was originally scheduled to be sentenced on March 23, 2004. At that time, he
indicated that he did not know why his sentences could not be concurrent. This judge indicated
to the defendant that the court was not party to the plea agreement and that any agreement about
the sentence was between the defendant and the district attorney's office. Because, however, Mr.
Miller continued to have questions, his sentence was put off for a period of two days to give him
the opportunity to review the matter again with counsel.
At the time of his sentencing on March 25th, Mr. Miller's counsel indicated that he was
prepared for sentencing in accordance with the agreement. In fact, the defendant relayed,
through counsel, a request that he be sentenced first at docket number 1397. This had to do with
the hope that the defendant, at some point, would become boot camp eligible. We again
indicated to the defendant that the matter of consecutive sentences was part of a plea agreement
and was not something unilaterally imposed by the court. The defendant then indicated that he
had no further questions concerning that matter. N.T. 4. To the extent that the defendant may
now assert that his sentences should have been concurrent, such an assertion is, at best,
disingenuous.
July 14, 2004
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Micah Winston Miller, FS-8065
P. O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200