Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 9, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0703901-2001
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 1, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0703901-2001
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J. [*]
In these consolidated appeals, Dale J. Butts appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 9, 2012, docketed at 2606 EDA 2012, and the judgment of sentence entered on November 1, 2012, docketed at 3290 EDA 2012. We dismiss as moot the appeal docketed at 2606 EDA 2012 and affirm the appeal docketed at 3290 EDA 2012.
Preliminarily, we note that we dismiss as moot the appeal docketed at 2606 EDA 2012. That appeal is from the judgment of sentence entered on August 9, 2012. At that time, the trial court, after revoking Butts's probation, imposed a term of imprisonment of 3 to 15 years. Thereafter, Butts filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. Butts then retained new counsel and filed another motion in which he maintained that the probation revocation sentence was illegal. While this motion was pending, he then filed an appeal. While the appeal was pending, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the post-sentence motion. On November 1, 2012, the trial court recognized the illegality of the August 9 sentence and re-sentenced Butts to 3 to 8 years' imprisonment. Butts then filed another appeal, docketed at 3290 EDA 2012.
The trial court was within its rights to correct the patent illegality of the August 9 sentence even though it did so after Butts filed an appeal to this Court. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007).
Once it corrected the sentence and re-sentenced Butts it rendered the appeal docketed 2606 EDA 2012 moot. Accordingly, we dismiss that appeal as moot.
We next turn to the merits of the appeal docketed at 3290 EDA 2012. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and issues raised on appeal. For a recitation of the factual background and procedural history, we refer the reader to the trial court's comprehensive opinion of March 22, 2013, where the facts and procedure are set forth.
We have reviewed the certified record, Butts' brief, and the trial court's opinion. The trial court ably and methodically addressed Butts's arguments on appeal in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's reasoning as our own for the disposition of the appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/22/13, at 1-11.
Appeal docketed at 2606 EDA 2012 dismissed as moot. Appeal docketed at 3290 EDA 2012 judgment of ...