from the Judgment of Sentence July 25, 2016 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E. and STEVENS, P.J.E.
Frank Dixon, II, ("Appellant") appeals from the
judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County after he pled guilty to one count of rape by
forcible compulsion of a female under 16 years old. Sentenced
to a term of incarceration of three and one-half to seven
years, Appellant contends that the court's refusal to
credit him with time served on pretrial home confinement with
electronic monitoring rendered his sentence illegal. We
August 25, 2014, 31 year-old Appellant was charged with rape
by forcible compulsion, statutory sexual assault, involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse person less than 16 years of age,
indecent assault, and corrupting the morals of a
minor in connection with his assault of a female
under sixteen years of age. On April 27, 2016, Appellant
entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to the charge of
rape, and, on July 25, 2016, the trial court imposed the
above-cited sentence pursuant to the plea agreement.
sentencing, defense counsel notified the court that Appellant
sought credit for the approximately ten months he served on
court-ordered pretrial home confinement with electronic
monitoring. N.T. 7/25/16 at 10. The court advised Appellant
to discuss the issue further with counsel and if he still
wished to make the request he should do so in a post-sentence
motion. N.T. at 11. On August 4, 2016, Appellant raised the
issue in his counseled post-sentence motion, but the court
denied the motion in its order of August 29, 2016. This
timely appeal followed.
Appellant presents one issue for our consideration:
SHOULD [APPELLANT] BE GIVEN CREDIT TOWARDS THE TERM OF HIS
SENTENCE FOR TIME SERVED ON HOME DETENTION?
Appellant's brief at 5.
standard of review following a plea of guilty is
well-settled. "A plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of
all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses" and
"waives the right to challenge anything but the legality
of [the] sentence and the validity of [the] plea."
Commonwealth v. Jones, 593 Pa. 295, 929 A.2d 205,
212 (2007) (citation omitted).
based upon the failure to give credit for time served is a
challenge implicating the legality of one's sentence.
Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 669 (Pa.Super.
2014). "A claim challenging the legality of sentence is
appealable as of right." Commonwealth v.
Hollawell, 604 A.2d 723, 725 (Pa.Super. 1992);
Commonwealth v. Clark, 885 A.2d 1030, 1032
scope and standard of review for illegal sentence claims is
The scope and standard of review applied to determine the
legality of a sentence are well established. If no statutory
authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence
is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence
must be vacated. In evaluating a trial court's
application of a statute, our standard of review is plenary
and is limited to determining whether the trial court
committed an error of law.
Commonwealth v. Leverette, 911 A.2d 998, 1001-02
(Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citations omitted). An issue
seeking credit "for time spent on bail release subject
to electronic home monitoring is primarily one of statutory
construction." Commonwealt ...