Opinion
J. S54041/15 No. 854 EDA 2015
08-31-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. MARK BENTON, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division No(s).: CP-09-CR-0002928-2005
BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Pro se Appellant, Mark Benton, appeals from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the trial court did not issue a judgment of sentence in his case, thus invalidating all appellate rulings on direct appeal and resolving claims for collateral relief. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court's decision. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/8/15, at 1-2. Appellant timely appealed and he raises the following issue: "Did the lower court err in denying [Appellant] relief pertaining to his judgment of sentence in the circumstances surrounding it?" Our Supreme Court has held that a claim alleging that the "absence of a written sentencing order related to the judgment of sentence" challenges the legality of the defendant's "'commitment and detention,' and therefore his petition for review sounded in habeas corpus." Brown v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections , 81 A.3d 814, 815 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam); accord Joseph v . Glunt , 96 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 787 (Pa. 2014). The standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Joseph , 96 A.3d at 369. Instantly, after careful review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the decision by the Honorable Alan M. Rubenstein, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's decision. See Trial Ct. Op. at 3 (holding courts have repeatedly rejected claim that illegal sentence results from absence of sentencing order; regardless, record reflected jury sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment); see also N.T. Sentencing Hr'g, 3/3/06, at 3. Accordingly, having discerned no abuse of discretion, see Joseph , 96 A.3d at 369, we affirm the order below.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/31/2015
Image materials not available for display.