HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-3108-2005
COMMONWEAL TH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ROBERT LEROY DEIHL
CP-21-CR-31 08-2005
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Bayley, J., November 27,2006:--
On May 23, 2006, defendant, Robert Leroy Deihl, entered a plea of guilty to a
summary offense of driving while operating privileges were suspended, DUI related,1
and to driving under the influence, highest rate, a misdemeanor one.2 A pre-sentence
investigation revealed that this was defendant's eighth conviction for driving under the
influence. His prior convictions were in 1979, 1984, 1987, 1990, two in 1994, and
2004. A misdemeanor of the first degree has a maximum penalty of five years
imprisonmene The minimum Pennsylvania Sentence Guideline mitigated range for
defendant is 9 months, the standard range is 12-18 months, and the aggregated range
is 21 months. On September 5, 2006, defendant was sentenced for summary driving
under suspension to imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for 90 days, and
for driving under the influence, highest rate, to imprisonment in a state correctional
175 Pa.C.S. S 1543(b).
275 Pa.C.S. S 3802(c).
318 Pa.C.S. S 1104(1).
CP-21-CR-31 08-2005
institution for not less than one year nor more than five years, to run consecutive to the
first sentence.
On September 15, 2006, defendant, through his trial counsel, filed a timely
motion to reconsider the sentence. The motion was denied on September 19, 2006.
No direct appeal was taken from this order. On October 23, 2006, defendant, pro se,
filed a motion to modify his sentence for driving under the influence seeking to have it
served in the Cumberland County Prison rather than a state correctional institution. An
order was entered on October 30, 2006, denying the motion as untimely. Defendant
filed a direct appeal from this order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(1 )(a) provides that, "The defendant in a court case shall
have the right to make a post-sentence motion. . . which may include: . . . (v) a motion
to modify sentence." Pursuant to Rule 720(A)(1), such a post-sentence motion "[s]hall
be filed no later than 1 0 days after imposition of sentence." Defendant's counseled
post-sentence motion was timely filed on September 15, 2006, and denied on
September 19th. Defendant's pro se post-trial motion filed on October 23, 2006, over a
month and a half after he was sentenced, was properly denied as untimely.4
4 Following imposition of the sentence, the court advised defendant his appeal rights,
including: "within 10 days of this date, if you wish, you can file a written motion with me
asking me to change or modify that sentence." He was further told that if such a motion
was denied, he ". . . would have the right to file a direct appeal to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania, that is an intermediate appellate court above this one, within 30 days of
such a denial."
-2-
CP-21-CR-31 08-2005
(Date)
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Robert Leroy Deihl, Pro se
Cumberland County Prison
1101 Claremont Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
:sal
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
-3-