from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 5, 2018 In the
Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
Scott Allen Kiley, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on June 5, 2018, in the Juniata County Court of
Common Pleas. We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand
for a new sentencing hearing consistent with this opinion.
trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural
history as follows.
On March 12, 2018, [Appellant] pled guilty to one count each
of: operating a methamphetamine lab,  [manufacturing a
controlled substance],  risking catastrophe,  and possession of
a precursor substance with intent to
manufacture. Other than the Commonwealth agreeing that
the weight of the methamphetamine was 50-100 grams to lower
[Appellant's] offense gravity score to [ten], [Appellant]
entered an open guilty plea. On June 5, 2018, [Appellant]
received three concurrent sentences[:] [four to ten] years
for [manufacturing a controlled substance], [two to ten]
years for operating a methamphetamine lab, and [one to two]
years for possession of precursor substances with intent to
manufacture [Appellant also received] one consecutive
sentence of [one to two] years for risking catastrophe, for a
total sentence of [five to] 12 years.
[Appellant] received credit [for time served] from June 12,
2017 to June 5, 2018. [At Appellant's sentencing hearing,
] [a]fter [the court imposed sentence], [Appellant] stated he
thought the plea agreement he signed was for [three to six]
years. [T]he court and the Attorney General reviewed the
written plea agreement with [Appellant], noting that the
document did not mention [three to six] years, only that the
maximum sentence was 44 years. The Attorney General outlined
the plea agreement again.
At [Appellant's] guilty plea hearing on March 12, 2018,
the Attorney General stated, and the court reiterated, that
this was an open guilty plea and the only agreement was to a
weight of 50-100 grams of methamphetamine. [Appellant] was
colloquyed and acknowledged that he had read and understood
the guilty plea documents. During [Appellant's]
sentencing hearing, the Attorney General explained
[Appellant's] maximum sentence and reiterated the only
agreement was the methamphetamine weight.
In announcing the sentence, the court noted each sentence was
within the standard range and that the court had considered
[Appellant's] counseling. [Appellant relied on an email
from the Deputy Attorney General to support his claim that
the plea agreement entailed only a three to six year
sentence.] The email [to which Appellant referred only
discussed] the [manufacturing a controlled substance] charge
having a [possible] minimum sentence of 36-48 months. As the
court imposed a [four to ten] year sentence on this charge,
[the sentence fell within] this guideline . Therefore,
[Appellant's] total sentence of [five to] 12 years is a
standard range sentence that meets the parameters of the
Trial Court Opinion, 9/18/2018, at 1-3 (unnecessary
capitalization and internal citations removed).
presents three issues for our review:
1. Whether the sentence imposed was outside the scope of the
2. Should the sentence for risking a catastrophe have merged
with another count set forth in the information?
3. Did the consecutive sentences imposed for the manufacture
of a controlled substance and risking a catastrophe raise the
aggregate sentence to an unreasonably excessive level in
light of the conduct at issue in this ...