Com. v. Riggins, R.

J-S44014-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RAHEIM RIGGINS, Appellant No. 37 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 6, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011009-2013 CP-51-CR-0012347-2013 CP-51-CR-0012349-2013 CP-51-CR-0012351-2013 CP-51-CR-0012352-2013 CP-51-CR-0013662-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2017 Appellant, Raheim Riggins, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 36 to 72 years’ incarceration, imposed after he was convicted of numerous offenses in six separate cases, including, inter alia, rape, aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, indecent assault, burglary, criminal conspiracy, and carrying a firearm without a license. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to sustain his convictions, as well as discretionary aspects of his sentence. After careful review, we find no merit to these claims. However, we sua sponte determine that the trial court’s November 6, 2015 order that deems Appellant a Sexually J-S44014-17 Violent Predator (SVP) under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41, is illegal. Therefore, we vacate in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings. The trial court set forth a lengthy summary of the facts and procedural history of Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/11/17, at 1-17. We only briefly note that Appellant was charged with various offenses in six separate cases that were ultimately consolidated for trial. On February 4, 2015, a jury convicted him of multiple counts of robbery and conspiracy, as well as single counts of rape, aggravated assault, burglary, unlawful restraint, indecent assault, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia. For these offenses, Appellant was sentenced to the aggregate term stated supra. He was also determined to be an SVP, which carries a mandatory lifetime registration requirement under SORNA. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(6). Following Appellant’s conviction and sentencing, he filed timely post- sentence motions in each case. Those motions were ultimately denied, and Appellant filed timely notices of appeal in each case. The trial court then directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Problematically, Appellant chose to file six different (albeit very similar) Rule 1925(b) statements in each of his cases. Apparently, the trial court did not realize that Appellant was filing multiple concise statements. While the court ultimately drafted a well-reasoned and detailed -2- J-S44014-17 opinion, see Trial Court Original Opinion (TCOO), 10/5/16, it inadvertently erred by concluding that Appellant had waived his sufficiency of the evidence claim(s) based on the single Rule 1925(b) statement the court assessed. More significantly, the court also did not address two weight-of-the-evidence issues raised by Appellant in the cases pertaining to victims J.H. and Earle Wilson.1 Consequently, we were constrained to issue a judgment order remanding Appellant’s case for the trial ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals