Canvas X 2020 Build 20.0.390 Product Key

The Commonwealth contends that the defendant has waived his right to appeal this issue because he has not preserved his right to appeal the illegal sentence. The defendant contends that he is not appealing the illegal sentence, but the validity of the charges and the sentence imposed by the court. He claims that the issue of illegal sentence, properly construed, creates a jurisdictional defect in the proceedings, and that, accordingly, the issue should be reviewed by the court. The defendant waived his right to a trial by jury. He did not orally or in writing demand a jury trial, nor was the jury waived. This Court has the constitutional authority to review all appeals, including those that are not preserved for appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302.

If I had him under oath, I would have asked the judge, as a part of the colloquy, to explain exactly what he means by the term, "he could have built it up." Although the colloquy demonstrates that the defendant was advised of the right to a jury trial and to all the constitutional rights he was waiving, it does not satisfy the constitutional and statutory mandate that the defendant be advised that he faced a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years. A signed written statement of rights form is not a substitute for the colloquy required by statute. See Pa. R.Crim.P. 576. However, the best safeguard against a unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary waiver of court-mandated constitutional rights is a colloquy. The colloquy in this case was deficient in that it failed to meet the constitutional mandate of constitutional and statutory requirements. Moreover, it was not signed by the defendant, nor did the defendant execute a written statement. This defect in the colloquy requires a trial by jury.

The defendant was convicted of offenses that do not carry mandatory sentences. Minimum mandatory sentences, therefore, do not apply. The trial court had no authority to place the defendant at the "top of the guidelines." Imposition of the statutorily mandated sentence in this case would have been manifestly unreasonable. d2c66b5586