Com. v. Bishop, M. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S27031-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MARCUS D. BISHOP Appellant No. 1538 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County Criminal Division at No: CP-20-CR-0000610-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J. , ALLEN, and STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 Appellant Marcus D. Bishop appeals from the October 23, 2012 judgment of sentence1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County (trial court) following his negotiated guilty plea to criminal use of a ____________________________________________ 1 Appellant sought to appeal the trial court s August 26, 2013 order, which denied his post-sentence reconsideration motion filed nunc pro tunc. It is well-settled that [i]n a criminal action, appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of post-sentence motions. Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 800 A.2d 932 (Pa. 2002); see also Commonwealth v. W.H.M. JR., 932 A.2d 155, 158 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (noting that an appeal from an order denying post-sentence motions is procedurally improper because a direct appeal in a criminal proceeding lies from judgment of sentence). This appeal, therefore, properly lies from the judgment of sentence and not from any post-sentence order. Accordingly, we have corrected the caption. J-S27031-14 communication facility2 and indecent assault.3 Upon review, we adopt the trial court s Rule 1925(a) opinion and affirm the judgment of sentence. Given the parties close familiarity with the details of this case and the trial court s thorough recounting of the facts and procedural history, we need not further elaborate upon the background of this case. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 11/7/13, at 1-2. Following the trial court s denial of Appellant s nunc pro tunc motion for reconsideration, Appellant appealed to this Court. On appeal, Appellant raises two issues for our review.4 First, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his reconsideration motion by which he challenged the sentence imposed as manifestly excessive.5 Second, Appellant argues that ____________________________________________ 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a). 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8). We observe that Appellant failed to develop his arguments or cite to any legal authority in support of them in his brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b). Although we have the authority to deem Appellant s arguments waived on this basis, we reluctantly decline to do so in this instance. See Commonwealth v. Kearney, __ A.3d __, 2014 WL 1797677 (Pa. Super. May 6, 2014). As a result, we proceed to review the merits of his appeal. 4 5 As we stated in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010): An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-S27031-14 the trial court erred in failing to consider him eligible for motivational boot camp, as provided under 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 3901-09. After careful review of the parties briefs, the record on appeal, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court s 1925(a) opinion authored by the Honorable Mark D. Stevens, thoroughly and adequately disposes of Appellant s issues on appeal. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 11/7/13, at 2-5. We, therefore, affirm the trial court s judgment of sentence. We direct that a copy of the trial court s November 7, 2013 Rule 1925(a) opinion be attached to any future filings in this case. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 (Footnote Continued) _______________________ appellant s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Id. at 170 (citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006)). -3- J-S27031-14 -4-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.