The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the sentence of Michael Encrapera, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The court also identified a clerical error in the written sentencing order that requires correction. This ruling affects Encrapera, who was originally charged with more serious drug-related offenses.

On November 5, 2026, the court issued its decision in case number 670 WDA 2025. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standing of Encrapera's plea and addresses procedural issues surrounding his representation.

Background

The case revolves around Michael Encrapera, who faced multiple charges after police discovered drug paraphernalia, methamphetamine, and heroin in a vehicle he was riding in. Initially charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia, Encrapera ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.

On May 27, 2025, during a plea and sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth agreed to amend the more severe charges in exchange for Encrapera's guilty plea. His attorney confirmed that Encrapera understood the disorderly conduct charge and the maximum penalty associated with it. The court sentenced him to credit for time served, meaning he would not serve additional jail time beyond what he had already completed.

The Ruling

The court ruled to affirm Encrapera's judgment of sentence but denied his attorney's request to withdraw from the case. Judge Neuman stated, "We affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth infra, we remand his case for the court to strike this erroneous language from the written sentencing order." This ruling indicates that while the court found no merit in Encrapera's appeal, it recognized the need to correct a clerical error in the sentencing documents.

The error involved a written statement that incorrectly indicated a 90-day minimum and maximum sentence of incarceration. The court clarified that this was a clerical mistake, as the intended sentence was credit for time served. The ruling emphasized that the spoken sentence during the hearing should prevail over the written order in cases of discrepancy.

Impact

This decision has implications for how guilty pleas and sentencing are documented in Pennsylvania courts. It highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping and the need for courts to ensure that written orders reflect the actual sentences imposed during hearings. The ruling also reinforces the principle that defendants must raise objections during plea proceedings or file post-sentence motions to preserve their rights for appeal.

Encrapera's case illustrates the challenges defendants face when navigating the legal system, particularly regarding the effectiveness of counsel and the preservation of claims for appeal. The court's decision to affirm the sentence while correcting the clerical error ensures that Encrapera's legal standing remains intact, despite the procedural issues that arose.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case will be remanded to the trial court to correct the clerical error in the sentencing order. There is no indication that Encrapera's case will be appealed further, as the court has affirmed the judgment of sentence. Details regarding any related cases were not available in the court filing.