illegal sentence claim in Pennsylvania

2025See Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766, 768 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating that this Court may raise and review an illegal sentence claim sua sponte).

2024See Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766, 768 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating that this Court may raise and review an illegal sentence claim sua sponte); Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 242 A.3d 667, 673 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“Because the legality of a sentence presents a pure question of law, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo.”). (citation omitted).

2023See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating, “[a] claim asserting that the trial court failed to award credit for time served implicates the legality of sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 , 888 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that, an illegal sentence claim operates as an exception to the bright-line waiver rule); Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that, a legality of sentence claim cannot be waived for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement provided that jurisdiction has, otherwise, been established);

2021Rodland cites Commonwealth v. Bartrug, 732 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1999), in support. -6- J-S20001-19 In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, “[t]he issue … is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2025Fahy, 737 A.2d at 223 . - 10 -

2023See 42 Pa.C.S.A. -6- J-S31006-23 § 9543(a)(2)(vii) (stating that, to be eligible for relief, a PCRA petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, inter alia, the sentence imposed was greater than the lawful maximum); see also Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999) (stating that, a legality of sentence claim is always subject to review within the PCRA, provided the reviewing court has jurisdiction over the matter); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 252 A.3d 243 , 2021 WL 777769 , at *7 n.6, *8 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum) (stating that, although th

2018“In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, ‘[t]he issue . . . is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.’” Commonwealth v. Ousley, 21 A.3d 1238, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).

2016“In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, ‘[t]he issue ... is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.’. . .” Ousley, supra at 1242 .

2021I have supported some of the accretions based on narrower logic than that which was applied in the main opinions, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 504 , 151 A.3d 121, 127 (2016) (Saylor, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41 , 17 A.3d 332, 355-56 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring), and I have joined other opinions based on precedent, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 644 Pa. 463 , 480-81, 177 A.3d 182, 192 (2018).3 Nevertheless, decisions of this Court continue to evince that the illegal- 2 The majority author replies to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence exa

2021I have supported some of the accretions based on narrower logic than that which was applied in the main opinions, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 504 , 151 A.3d 121, 127 (2016) (Saylor, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41 , 17 A.3d 332, 355-56 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring), and I have joined other opinions based on precedent, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 644 Pa. 463 , 480-81, 177 A.3d 182, 192 (2018).3 Nevertheless, decisions of this Court continue to evince that the illegal- 2 The majority author replies to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence exa

2025“Because the legality of a sentence presents a pure question of law, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 242 A.3d 667, 673 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2024See Commonwealth v. Ramos, 197 A.3d 766, 768 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating that this Court may raise and review an illegal sentence claim sua sponte); Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 242 A.3d 667, 673 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“Because the legality of a sentence presents a pure question of law, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo.”). (citation omitted).

2022Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, … 177 A.3d 182, 192 ([Pa.] 2018).

2021I have supported some of the accretions based on narrower logic than that which was applied in the main opinions, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 504 , 151 A.3d 121, 127 (2016) (Saylor, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41 , 17 A.3d 332, 355-56 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring), and I have joined other opinions based on precedent, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 644 Pa. 463 , 480-81, 177 A.3d 182, 192 (2018).3 Nevertheless, decisions of this Court continue to evince that the illegal- 2 The majority author replies to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence exa

2019See Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 1998) (explaining that a defendant cannot waive an illegal sentence claim). -3- J-A25013-18 satisfy this burden, Appellant must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the underlying legal claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel had no reasonable basis for acting or failing to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered resulting prejudice.

2003An illegal sentence claim can never be waived, Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super.1998), and we therefore do not address this issue under an ineffective counsel analysis.

2020In Commonwealth v. Spruill, 80 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed “the proper scope of the illegal sentence doctrine which allows for review of otherwise defaulted claims.” Id. at 454 (quotation omitted).

2020In Commonwealth v. Spruill, 80 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed “the proper scope of the illegal sentence doctrine which allows for review of otherwise defaulted claims.” Id. at 454 (quotation omitted).

2018Stat. § 9764 (a)(8) and 37 Pa. Code§ 91.3.7 See Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concluding that the PCRA did not subsume an illegal-sentence claim based on the inability of the Department of Corrections to produce a written sentencing order).

2018See Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concluding that the PCRA did not subsume an illegal sentence claim based on the inability of the DOC to produce a written sentencing order).

2021In Commonwealth v. Barnes, 151 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2016), this court held that a claim under Alleyne, that imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under a statute later determined to be unconstitutional was an illegal sentence claim on direct appeal.

2021I have supported some of the accretions based on narrower logic than that which was applied in the main opinions, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Barnes, 637 Pa. 493, 504 , 151 A.3d 121, 127 (2016) (Saylor, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Foster, 609 Pa. 502, 539-41 , 17 A.3d 332, 355-56 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring), and I have joined other opinions based on precedent, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiMatteo, 644 Pa. 463 , 480-81, 177 A.3d 182, 192 (2018).3 Nevertheless, decisions of this Court continue to evince that the illegal- 2 The majority author replies to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence exa

2023See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating, “[a] claim asserting that the trial court failed to award credit for time served implicates the legality of sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 , 888 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that, an illegal sentence claim operates as an exception to the bright-line waiver rule); Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that, a legality of sentence claim cannot be waived for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement provided that jurisdiction has, otherwise, been established);

2022Appellant’s Brief at 20-22; see also Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating that, “[a] claim asserting that the trial court failed to award credit for time served implicates the legality of the sentence”).

2021Instead of being an illegal sentence claim cognizable under the PCRA, the Superior Court, citing Lawrence, found that Rouse’s claim was a legal question involving sentencing, not a challenge to the trial court’s authority or actions but 8The third category also includes claims brought under Apprendi’s progeny, including Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). [J-55-2020] - 7 rather the “legislature’s ostensible failure to provide adequate notice of the penalty for second degree murder.” Id.

2021Instead of being an illegal sentence claim cognizable under the PCRA, the Superior Court, citing Lawrence, found that Rouse’s claim was a legal question involving sentencing, not a challenge to the trial court’s authority or actions but 8The third category also includes claims brought under Apprendi’s progeny, including Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). [J-55-2020] - 7 rather the “legislature’s ostensible failure to provide adequate notice of the penalty for second degree murder.” Id.

2024Whether the imposition of SORNA registration without the jury’s finding of future dangerousness constitutes an illegal sentence in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey[, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)]. 3.

2021Conversely, and as the majority explains, in Pennsylvania, claims arising under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), have been deemed non-waivable, as violative sentences have been found to implicate the illegal-sentence doctrine.

2021Rodland cites Commonwealth v. Bartrug, 732 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1999), in support. -6- J-S20001-19 In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, “[t]he issue … is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2021Rodland cites Commonwealth v. Bartrug, 732 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1999), in support. -6- J-S20001-19 In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, “[t]he issue … is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2025“In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, the issue is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Lomax, 8 A.3d 1264, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation marks, citations, and corrections omitted).

2016“In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, ‘[t]he issue is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.’” Commonwealth v. Lomax, 8 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted)).

2023In Pennsylvania, the PCRA subsumes the writ of habeas corpus and is “intended to be the sole means of achieving post-conviction relief.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2013); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542.

2020Id.

2021At no point did Appellant seek permission to amend his PCRA Petition to raise an illegal sentence claim. ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). -2- J-S07022-21 On July 20, 2020, the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s Petition.

2016See id. 9 On August 17, 2016, this Court remanded this matter out of an abundance of caution to determine whether the PCRA court had actually granted appointed PCRA counsel’s petition to withdraw.

2026See Cruz, 320 A.3d at 1274- 76.

2026See id. at 15-16; Commonwealth v. Torres, 223 A.3d 715, 716 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2025Moore, 247 A.3d at 993, 995; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(viii); Commonwealth v. Catt, 994 A.2d 1158, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (stating, “[a] claim that implicates the fundamental legal authority of the court to impose a particular sentence constitutes a challenge to the legality of the sentence”).

2023See Barnes, 167 A.3d at 116 ; Miller, 102 A.3d at 995 .

2023See Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 181 A.3d 1165, 1166 (Pa. Super. 2018) (stating, “[a] claim asserting that the trial court failed to award credit for time served implicates the legality of sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 , 888 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that, an illegal sentence claim operates as an exception to the bright-line waiver rule); Commonwealth v. Edrington, 780 A.2d 721, 723 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that, a legality of sentence claim cannot be waived for failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement provided that jurisdiction has, otherwise, been established);

2022Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Passarelli, 789 A.2d 708, 714 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“Inquiry into the legality of a sentence is a non-waivable matter.”) (overruled by Commonwealth v. Spruill, 80 A.3d 453 , 463 n.13 (Pa. 2013)).