Submitted October 27, 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-15-CR-0001794. Before MACELREE, J.
John R. Merrick, Public Defender, and Cory P. Taylor, Public Defender, West Chester, for appellant.
Nicholas J. Casenta, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, and Gerald P. Morano, Assistant District Attorney, West Chester, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, MUNDY, and STRASSBURGER,[*] JJ.
Peter Allen Treadway (Appellant) appeals from his aggregate judgment of sentence of 100 to 200 years of imprisonment for his convictions for 45 counts of various sex crimes. We affirm.
A prior panel of this Court offered the following succinct summary of the facts of this case.
[Appellant] sexually abused his stepdaughter. This depravity continued for years. The victim testified that the abuse began when she was nine or ten years old and that [Appellant] first had sexual intercourse with her when she turned eleven. By the time the victim was thirteen or fourteen years old, [Appellant] had sex with her " every day or multiple times a day." Eventually the victim became pregnant. The victim, with [Appellant's] assistance, obtained an abortion in a hospital.
After a four-day trial, the jury convicted [Appellant] of a multitude of sexual offenses and counts. The trial court sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 100 to 200 years.
Commonwealth v. Treadway, 64 A.3d 278 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum at 2) (citation to trial transcript omitted).
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, but determined that his sentence was illegal. Appellant was sentenced under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2, " a statute that was implemented well after the convicted criminal conduct and which increased the punishment imposed by the law in effect at the time the crime was committed." Id. at 5. Furthermore, Appellant was sentenced based on the age of the victim at the time of the acts, although the jury made no factual determination about when the acts occurred, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Id. at 7. Therefore, this Court vacated Appellant's judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing. However, this Court expressly noted that " [n]othing in this memorandum is to be construed as precluding the trial court on re-sentencing from exercising its discretion to impose a sentence up to the statutory maximum provided for each offense--and running those sentences consecutively." Id. at 8 n.4.
After remand, the trial court did just that, again imposing an aggregate sentence of 100 to 200 years of imprisonment by sentencing Appellant to, by and large, consecutive statutory maximum sentences. The trial court subsequently denied Appellant's ...