Sentence against Hazleton man stands
A 2006 sentence for a Hazleton man who pleaded guilty to killing a motorcyclist on a charity ride and injuring several others will stand, the state Supreme Court ruled.
Jeffrey M. Borrin was charged in the July 24, 2005, crash in Butler Township, where his vehicle crossed state Route 309 and plowed into a group of motorcyclists. Borrin, whose son was in the back seat of his vehicle, was under the influence of opiates when the deadly crash happened.
Borrin pleaded guilty to 20 criminal counts in March 2006 and Luzerne County Judge Chester Muroski sentenced him to 36 to 72 months on the homicide charge and varying consecutive sentences on the remaining charges plus probation.
The judge's intention was a prison sentence totalling 107 to 214 months, but the wording of the order implied concurrent sentences, translating to an overall sentence of 52 to 104 months. The judge learned about the oversight in 2008, when Borrin applied for pre-release after serving 30 months in prison.
Muroski wrote to the state Department of Corrections explaining that he intended the sentences to run consecutively to each other, and not concurrently, according to court papers. In 2009, Muroski held a hearing to clarify the sentence and correct a clerical error.
Borrin appealed to the state Superior Court, which reversed Muroski's 2009 order clarifying the sentence. The court said the judge "committed an error of law" when he modified Borrin's sentence and reinstated the 2006 sentence of 52 to 104 months.
The Luzerne County district attorney's office appealed the Superior Court decision, saying Borrin's sentence shouldn't be reduced by half - from 107 to 214 months to 52 to 104 months - due to a clerical error.
The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the Superior Court's decision to reverse the judge's 2009 order and remand the reinstatement of the 2006 sentence of 52 to 104 months.
The high court found the wording of the sentences imposed in the 2006 order were ambiguous and open to competing interpretations, but did not rise to the level required to allow the trial court to correct, as Muroski attempted to do with the 2009 order.
"Accordingly, we conclude the trial court's subsequent June 12, 2009, order, by stating all of Appellee's sentences as consecutive to Count 1 and to each other, did not clarify Appellee's sentence, but modified it," the Supreme Court said.
"On June 12, 2009, however, there was no statute or rule that gave the trial court jurisdiction to take such action in Appellee's case."