J-A05029-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GREGORY SPECTOR 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 514 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 9, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0012822-2013

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MARCH 22, 2018

Gregory Spector (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered after a jury convicted him of attempted murder, attempted theft by 

unlawful taking (attempted theft), attempted receipt of stolen property, 

aggravated assault, conspiracy, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), 

simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and robbery.1 

We affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacate his judgment of sentence and 

remand for resentencing only.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows:

On July 21, 2013, [Appellant] contacted the complainant, 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2502, 3921(a), 3925(a), 2702(a)(1), 903(a), 

907(a), 2701(a), 2705, and 3701(a)(1)(i).
J-A05029-18

- 2 -

Sardor Bolyaganov [(Victim)], through Craigslist to purchase a 

Samsung Galaxy S3 cell phone. [Appellant] and [Victim] agreed 

to meet around 4:00 p.m. at Ferndale and Kentwood St[reets] in 

Philadelphia to conduct the transaction. [Appellant], who was 

purchasing the phone for his wife, arrived with her at that 

location. They agreed upon a price of $290 and completed the 

transaction. Later that afternoon, after having the phone service 

activated, [Appellant’s] wife, Ashley Spector, noticed that the 

phone began to cut out and indicate that there was no service. 

[Appellant] called AT&T around 6:30 p.m. that evening to report 

the issue and was told that the phone’s IMEI number was 

coming back as being stolen. Appellant then contacted [Victim]

to return the phone and get his money back. [Victim] told 

Appellant that he could give him back $200 [because] he spent 

$90 in the time since the initial transaction. They agreed to 

meet at the same location around 9:30 p.m.

[Appellant], along with his father, the co-defendant at trial 

Lonnie Spector, left their residence in Bucks County to meet with 

[Victim]. [Appellant] had in his possession his personal handgun 

along with an extra magazine. While driving, [Appellant] called 

911 to report what had occurred and for officers to accompany 

them to meet [Victim]. Following the initial call to 911 at 9:45 

p.m.[, Appellant] contacted 911 twice more, at 10:06 p.m. and 

10:23 p.m.[,] to alert them to their location and to see when 

officers were coming to meet them. At the same time, [Victim] 

was in contact with [Appellant] asking where he was and 

threatening to leave. Eventual[ly, Appellant] and his father grew 

impatient and left their location where they were waiting for 

police to arrive at around 10:30 p.m.

When they arrived at Ferndale and Kentwood St., [Victim]

was waiting in his car with his wife at the time, Olena Sirko

[(Sirko). Appellant] and [Victim] exited their vehicles, and 

[Victim] gave [Appellant] the $200. [Appellant] then told

[Victim] that he was [not] getting the phone back and 

aggressively started to yell at [Victim. Appellant’s] father, 

Lonnie[,] then exited the vehicle and ran over to the other two 

men and stated that he was an undercover cop. Lonnie then 

grabbed [Victim] and they began to wrestle and both 

eventual[ly] fell to the ground. At the same time [Appellant]

began taking pictures of [Victim’s] license plate. [Appellant]

th[e]n tried to grab [Victim] and was thrown backwards. 

[Victim] and Lonnie got up and continued to punch and push 
J-A05029-18

- 3 -

each other. At this point[,] Lonnie was against his car with 

[Victim] facing him and with [Victim’s] back to [Appellant. 

Appellant] then removed his handgun and from a distance of five 

or six feet fired twice toward [Victim’s] back. Appellant did not 

say anything before firing. [Victim] immediately fell to the

ground. [Appellant] then walked over to [Victim] and pointed 

his gun at him. [Victim] was not in possession of any weapon at 

any point on that day.

[Victim] was transported to Aria Hospital-Torresdale around 

11:00 p.m. He had a single bullet wound to his back with no 

exit point and was in shock. The bullet shattered the T10 

vertebra and also damaged the T9 vertebra. He was 

immediately paralyzed from the navel down and will likely be 

confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/16, at 2-4 (citations to notes of testimony 

omitted).

On April 24, 2015, a jury found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned 

crimes. The trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a presentence investigation report. On September 9, 2015, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 17 to 35 years of incarceration. 

Pursuant to the court’s sentencing order, Appellant’s aggregate sentence 

was comprised of the following terms, all to be served consecutively: 10 to 

20 years for attempted murder, 21⁄2 to 5 years for PIC; 1 to 3 years for 

REAP, 21⁄2 to 5 years for attempted theft, and 1 to 2 years for conspiracy.2 

____________________________________________

2

 The court imposed a sentence of 1 to 2 years of incarceration on the 

conspiracy charge at Count 12. Sentencing Order, 9/5/15. As we will 

discuss infra, the trial court further imposed sentences on eight additional 

counts of conspiracy (Counts 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16); each of 

these were to run concurrently with his other sentences.
J-A05029-18

- 4 -

Sentencing Order, 9/9/15. The sentences for Appellant’s remaining 

convictions either merged or were ordered to be served concurrently with 

the above-referenced sentences. See id.

The trial court summarized the subsequent procedural history as 

follows:

Appellant filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of 

Sentence and Motion for a New Trial on September 18, 2015 and 

September 21, 2015 respectively. The post-sentence motions 

were denied by operation of law on January 19, 2016.

Appellant filed a timely appeal on February 16, 2016. This 

court entered an Order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. [1925(b)] on 

February 19, 2016. Appellant, through new appellate counsel, 

filed a Motion for Issuance of a New Order on April 1, 2016,[3]

which was granted. He then timely filed his response on April 

25, 2016.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/16, at 1-2.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

[1.] Was not the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to 

sustain the Commonwealth’s burden of proving that the shooting 

was not committed in self-defense and/or in defense of 

Appellant’s father, Lonnie Spector?

[2.] Was not the evidence insufficient to sustain the attempted 

murder conviction where the jury was not instructed on malice in 

the context of reducing circumstances that would have negated 

it?

[3.] Was not the evidence insufficient to prove the crimes of 

____________________________________________

3

 According to Appellant’s motion, his counsel never received service of the 

trial court’s original Rule 1925(b) order and thus was unable to submit a 

timely Rule 1925(b) statement without the issuance of a new order. See

Motion for Issuance of a New Order, 4/1/16.
J-A05029-18

- 5 -

robbery and attempted theft and attempted theft by receiving 

stolen property?

[4.] Did not the lower court abuse its discretion in failing to 

give a cautionary instruction to the jury or grant a mistrial when 

the prosecution misrepresented the law as it pertained to selfdefense and defense of another person in closing argument?

[5.] Should not this Court grant discretionary review of the 

sentence imposed, and thereupon vacate [Appellant’s] judgment 

of sentence as excessive and clearly unreasonable?

[6.] Should not the Court vacate illegally imposed sentences on 

charges for which Appellant was not arraigned, or were in 

violation of statute or were otherwise subject to merger?

Appellant’s Brief at 11.

First, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that 

he did not act in self-defense or defense of another. Appellant contends that 

the evidence reveals he possessed the reasonable belief that both he and his 

father were in danger of death or serious bodily injury when he shot Victim. 

Additionally, Appellant asserts that neither his nor his father’s conduct prior 

to the shooting “could be construed as a provocation manifesting an 

intention to cause death or serious bodily injury” to Victim. Id. at 23.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows:

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency 

claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit 

of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 

Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it 

establishes each material element of the crime charged and the 

commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a 
J-A05029-18

- 6 -

mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is 

to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak 

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact 

can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the 

evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is 

circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence 

coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom 

overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may 

not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so 

long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective 

elements of a defendant’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, 

the appellant’s convictions will be upheld.

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Importantly, “the jury, which 

passes upon the weight and credibility of each witness’s testimony, is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 

33 A.3d 602, 607 (Pa. 2011).

A defendant has no burden to prove that he acted in self-defense or 

defense of another. Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 

2001). Instead, “the Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove such a 

defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

To prevail on a justification defense, there must be evidence of the 

following:

a) the actor was free from fault in provoking or continuing the 

difficulty which resulted in the use of deadly force; b) the actor 

must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger 

of death or serious bodily injury, and that there was a necessity 

to use such force in order to save himself or others therefrom; 
J-A05029-18

- 7 -

and c) the actor did not violate any duty to retreat or to avoid 

the danger.

* * *

The Commonwealth sustains [its] burden if it establishes at least 

one of the following: 1) the accused did not reasonably believe 

that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or 2) the 

accused provoked or continued the use of force; or 3) the 

accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with 

complete safety.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super. 2014); see also

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 505, 506.

We conclude that the Commonwealth sufficiently disproved Appellant’s 

claim of self-defense and defense of others. Both Victim and his wife, Olena 

Sirko, testified that Appellant and his father were the verbal and physical 

aggressors of the altercation. N.T., 4/13/15, at 77-84; N.T., 4/14/15, at 48-

49, 113-14. Both Victim and Ms. Sirko stated that when Victim met with 

Appellant and his father to return their money, it was Appellant and his 

father who began yelling and cursing at Victim because he did not have the 

full $290 to return to them. Id. Likewise, Victim and Ms. Sirko testified that 

it was Appellant’s father who first shoved and grabbed Victim, which was the 

impetus of the physical altercation that led to the shooting. Id.

Thus, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner, establishes that the Commonwealth 

presented evidence that Appellant and his father, Lonnie, were not free from 

fault in provoking the difficulty that culminated in the use of force. See
J-A05029-18

- 8 -

Smith, 97 A.3d at 787. Although Appellant argues that he and his father 

were not the aggressors, the jury was free to believe the testimony of Victim 

and Ms. Sirko. See Ramtahal, 33 A.3d at 607. Accordingly, Appellant’s 

first issue does not merit relief.

Second, Appellant argues that the “evidence was insufficient to sustain 

the attempted murder conviction where the jury was not instructed on 

malice in the context of reducing circumstances that would have negated it.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 27. Although he attempts to frame his second issue as a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant actually argues that 

the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense. 

See id. at 27-34. For several reasons, this claim fails.

Appellant, in his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, 

omitted any claim that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on

imperfect self-defense. Regarding Rule 1925(b), our Supreme Court has 

stated:

Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly 

establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, 

which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) 

statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 

1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the 

authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the 

Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or 

selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are 

responsible for complying with the Rule’s requirements; Rule 

1925 violations may be raised by the appellate court sua sponte, 

and the Rule applies notwithstanding an appellee’s request not 

to enforce it; and, if Rule 1925 is not clear as to what is required 

of an appellant, on-the-record actions taken by the appellant 

aimed at compliance may satisfy the Rule. We yet again repeat 
J-A05029-18

- 9 -

the principle first stated in Lord that must be applied here: 

“[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate review, 

[a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them 

to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant 

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement will be deemed waived.” [Commonwealth v. Lord,

719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 2011)].

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (footnote omitted). 

Therefore, because Appellant failed to preserve this issue in his Rule 1925(b) 

statement, he has waived it.

Appellant has also waived this issue because he never requested that 

the trial court instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense or otherwise 

objected to the trial court’s instruction for attempted murder. See N.T., 

4/21/15, at 3-56. A “defendant’s failure to request a specific instruction will 

waive any claim that the instruction should have been given.” 

Commonwealth v. Corley, 638 A.2d 985, 990 (Pa. Super. 1994); see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C) (“No portions of the charge nor omissions from the 

charge may be assigned as error, unless specific objections are made 

thereto before the jury retires to deliberate.”).

Moreover, even if Appellant had properly raised and preserved this 

issue, he would not have been entitled to a charge on imperfect selfdefense. Our Supreme Court has held that “a trial court shall only instruct 

on an offense where the offense has been made an issue in the case and 

where the trial evidence reasonably would support such a verdict.” 

Commonwealth v. Bond, 985 A.2d 810, 821 (Pa. 2009) (quotations and 
J-A05029-18

- 10 -

citations omitted). To prevail on a claim of imperfect self-defense, a 

defendant must have possessed “an unreasonable rather than a reasonable 

belief that deadly force was required to save the actor’s life. All other 

principles of justification under 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 505 must [be satisfied.]” 

Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa. 2012) (quotations 

and citations omitted). Therefore, “if the defendant was not free from fault, 

neither self-defense nor imperfect self-defense is a viable defense.” Id. at 

1124-25. As we discussed above in Appellant’s first issue, the 

Commonwealth presented evidence that neither Appellant nor his father 

were free from fault in provoking the altercation that eventually led to 

Victim’s shooting. Accordingly, even if it were properly preserved, 

Appellant’s second issue would be meritless.

Third, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain 

his convictions of robbery and attempted theft. Appellant contends that the 

Commonwealth failed to present evidence demonstrating that he caused 

serious bodily injury to Victim while attempting to commit a theft.

The jury found Appellant guilty of robbery pursuant to Section 

3701(a)(1)(i), which states that “[a] person is guilty of robbery if, in the 

course of committing a theft, he . . . inflicts serious bodily injury upon 

another.” See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i). Importantly, “[a]n act shall be 

deemed ‘in the course of committing a theft’ if it occurs in an attempt to 

commit theft[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(2). “A person is guilty of theft if 
J-A05029-18

- 11 -

he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of 

another with intent to deprive him thereof.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a). “A 

person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he 

does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of 

that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a).

Here, there is no dispute that Appellant caused serious bodily injury to 

Victim. Appellant, however, asserts that there was no evidence that he 

attempted to commit a theft because even though he refused to return the 

phone to Victim after Victim returned his money, he intended to turn the 

phone over to police so that they could return it to its rightful owner. This 

Court, however, has rejected “self-help” or “claim of right” as a defense to 

theft. Commonwealth v. Dombrauskas, 418 A.2d 493, 497 (Pa. Super. 

1980). We explained that “the proposition not only is lacking in sound 

reason and logic, but it is utterly incompatible with and has no place in an 

ordered and orderly society such as ours[.]” Id. Thus, “public policy 

precludes the assertion of a claim of right defense to a charge of theft by 

unlawful taking.” Id.

The record reflects that after Appellant informed Victim that the phone 

did not work because it was stolen, Appellant agreed to accept $200 in 

exchange for returning the phone to Victim. N.T., 4/14/15, at 39-41. Upon 

meeting with Victim and receiving his money, however, Appellant refused to 

return the phone. Id. at 45-47. Once Appellant received the $200 from 
J-A05029-18

- 12 -

Victim and refused to return the phone, Appellant took a substantial step 

towards unlawfully exercising control over the movable property of another. 

Therefore, the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, establishes that Appellant committed an attempted theft 

while causing serious bodily injury to Victim. See Franklin, 69 A.3d at 722-

23. The evidence thus was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s convictions for 

robbery and attempted theft, such that Appellant’s third issue does not 

entitle him to relief.

Fourth, Appellant challenges the trial court’s failure to give a 

cautionary instruction to the jury or grant a mistrial when the prosecutor 

allegedly misstated the law relating to self-dense during closing arguments. 

Appellant’s Brief at 37-39. Specifically, Appellant takes issue with the 

prosecutor stating during closing argument that in order to prevail on a 

claim of self-defense, a defendant must have “clean hands,” i.e. be free from 

fault in provoking the altercation that led to the use of force. Id. at 37. 

Appellant also argues that the prosecutor inappropriately stated that the use 

of force in defense requires a defendant to be in a “kill-or-be-killed 

situation.” Id. at 38. Appellant maintains that these statements constituted 

prosecutorial misconduct.

The standard of review governing the denial of a motion for mistrial is 

as follows:

In criminal trials, declaration of a mistrial serves to eliminate the 

negative effect wrought upon a defendant when prejudicial 
J-A05029-18

- 13 -

elements are injected into the case or otherwise discovered at 

trial. By nullifying the tainted process of the former trial and 

allowing a new trial to convene, declaration of a mistrial serves 

not only the defendant’s interest but, equally important, the 

public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments. 

Accordingly, the trial court is vested with discretion to grant a 

mistrial whenever the alleged prejudicial event may reasonably 

be said to deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. In 

making its determination, the court must discern whether 

misconduct or prejudicial error actually occurred, and if so, . . . 

assess the degree of any resulting prejudice. Our review of the 

resulting order is constrained to determining whether the court 

abused its discretion. Judicial discretion requires action in 

conformity with [the] law on facts and circumstances before the 

trial court after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the 

court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, 

it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner 

lacking reason.

Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606, 615 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(quotations and citation omitted), appeal denied, 145 A.3d 724 (Pa. 2016).

With respect to a claim of prosecutorial misconduct in a closing 

argument, this Court has explained:

[I]t is well settled that any challenged prosecutorial comment 

must not be viewed in isolation, but rather must be considered in 

the context in which it was offered. Our review of a prosecutor’s 

comment and an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct requires 

us to evaluate whether a defendant received a fair trial, not a 

perfect trial. Thus, it is well settled that statements made by the 

prosecutor to the jury during closing argument will not form the 

basis for granting a new trial “unless the unavoidable effect of 

such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their 

minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so they could 

not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.”

Commonwealth v. Fletcher, [ ] 861 A.2d 898, 916 ([Pa.] 

2004). The appellate courts have recognized that not every 

unwise remark by an attorney amounts to misconduct or 

warrants the grant of a new trial. Additionally, like the defense, 

the prosecution is accorded reasonable latitude, may employ 

oratorical flair in arguing its version of the case to the jury, and 
J-A05029-18

- 14 -

may advance arguments supported by the evidence or use 

inferences that can reasonably be derived therefrom. Moreover, 

the prosecutor is permitted to fairly respond to points made in 

the defense’s closing, and therefore, a proper examination of a 

prosecutor’s comments in closing requires review of the 

arguments advanced by the defense in summation.

Id. (some quotations and citations omitted).

Appellant takes issue with the following portions of the prosecutor’s 

closing argument:

[Commonwealth]: So the law—as I was saying, the law 

recognizes justification. And it’s, basically, reasonableness. 

What a reasonable person would do under the same 

circumstances. Now, the first thing is that the person—the 

defendants in this situation must have clean hands. They must 

have clean hands. They have to be free from fault in order to 

say yes, I was justified in using deadly force. That means that 

they can’t escalate the situation, nor can they continue the 

situation. That’s what that means.

* * *

The second thing is they have to be in a killed-or-be-killed 

situation. Once again, [a] killed-or-be-killed situation.

N.T., 4/20/15, at 194, 196.

Although Appellant’s claim that the prosecutor misstated the law 

governing self-defense is tenuous at best, even assuming, arguendo, that 

the prosecutor misstated the law during closing arguments, it did not 

necessitate a mistrial. Our Supreme Court has held that even where a 

prosecutor has misstated law during closing arguments, a claim of 

prosecutorial misconduct will nonetheless fail where the trial court correctly 

instructs the jury on the law and cautions the jury “to take the law from him 
J-A05029-18

- 15 -

and not from the attorneys.” Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 

361 (Pa. 1995).

In this case, the trial court provided the jury with detailed and proper 

instructions on the law relating to self-defense and defense of others. See

N.T., 4/21/15, at 89-94. Appellant did not object to these instructions. See 

id. Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury that it was to develop its 

understanding of the law only from the instructions of the court and not 

counsel. N.T., 4/20/15, at 199-200. Therefore, we conclude that even 

assuming, arguendo, that the prosecutor misstated the law relating to selfdefense, the trial court’s instructions to the jury cured any defect. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s 

request for a mistrial.

Fifth, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Appellant argues that his sentence of 17 to 35 years of incarceration is 

“manifestly excessive” and “clearly unreasonable.” Appellant’s Brief at 39-

40. Appellant specifically contends that the trial court failed to consider his 

rehabilitative needs, his minimal risk of recidivism, mitigating factors such as 

his lack of a prior criminal history and his reputation in the community, and 

otherwise fashion an individualized sentence.

“The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence is not absolute, and must be considered a petition for permission to 

appeal.” Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 
J-A05029-18

- 16 -

2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “An appellant must satisfy a 

four-part test to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction when challenging the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Id. We conduct this four-part test to 

determine whether:

(1) the appellant preserved the issue either by raising it at the 

time of sentencing or in a post[-]sentence motion; (2) the 

appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; (3) the appellant set 

forth a concise statement of reasons relied upon for the 

allowance of his appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) 

the appellant raises a substantial question for our review.

Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 662 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014). “A defendant presents a 

substantial question when he sets forth a plausible argument that the 

sentence violates a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the 

fundamental norms of the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 

77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted), 

appeal denied, 91 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2014).

Here, Appellant preserved his discretionary aspects of sentencing claim 

by raising it in a post-sentence motion. See Appellant’s Motion for 

Reconsideration of Sentence, 9/18/15. Appellant also filed a timely notice of 

appeal and included in his appellate brief a concise statement of the reasons 

relied upon for the allowance of his appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 2119(f). See Appellant’s Brief at 39-40. Thus, we 

must determine whether Appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing 

claim raises a substantial question for our review.
J-A05029-18

- 17 -

Appellant argues, inter alia, that his sentence is excessive and that the 

trial court failed to consider mitigating factors when it sentenced him. This 

Court has held “that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an 

assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a 

substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. 

Super. 2005)). Accordingly, we turn our attention to the merits of 

Appellant’s sentencing claim.

Our standard of review for discretionary aspects of sentencing claims 

is as follows:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse 

of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. 

Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, 

that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, 

exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias 

or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. 

Super. 2006)).

Section 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code sets forth general sentencing 

standards for trial courts and provides, in pertinent part:

(b) General standards.—. . . the court shall follow the 

general principle that the sentence imposed should call for 

confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, 

the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of 

the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of 

the defendant. . . . In every case in which the court imposes a 

sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, modifies a sentence, 
J-A05029-18

- 18 -

resentences an offender following revocation of probation, 

county intermediate punishment or State intermediate 

punishment or resentences following remand, the court shall 

make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the 

time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the 

sentence imposed.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

Our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is confined by 

the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c) and (d). Subsection 

9781(c) provides:

The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the 

case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:

(1) the sentencing court purported to sentence 

within the sentencing guidelines but applied the 

guidelines erroneously;

(2) the sentencing court sentenced within the 

sentencing guidelines but the case involves 

circumstances where the application of the guidelines 

would be clearly unreasonable; or

(3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the 

sentencing guidelines and the sentence is 

unreasonable.

In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence 

imposed by the sentencing court.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c). In reviewing the record, we must consider:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and 

the history and characteristics of the defendant.

(2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to 

observe the defendant, including any presentence 

investigation.

(3) The findings upon which the sentence was based.
J-A05029-18

- 19 -

(4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

sentencing Appellant. Appellant concedes that he received a sentence in the 

standard guideline range. Appellant’s Brief at 40. Additionally, the trial 

court had a presentence investigation report and acknowledged reviewing it. 

Id. at 19. “[W]here the sentencing court imposed a standard-range 

sentence with the benefit of a pre-sentence report, we will not consider the 

sentence excessive.” Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. 

Super. 2011). Additionally, “[i]n those circumstances, we can assume the 

sentencing court was aware of relevant information regarding the 

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with 

mitigating statutory factors.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

Moreover, the sentencing transcript reflects that the trial court took into 

consideration the sentencing standards enunciated in Section 9721(b) and 

mitigating factors such as Appellant’s positive reputation as a community 

volunteer and a volunteer firefighter. See N.T., 9/9/15, at 87-94. 

Therefore, there is no support for Appellant’s claim that his sentence was 

excessive and that the trial court did not take into consideration certain 

mitigating factors in sentencing him. Accordingly, Appellant’ discretionary 

aspects of sentencing claim does not entitle him to relief.

Finally, Appellant challenges the legality of several of his sentences. 
J-A05029-18

- 20 -

Appellant first argues the trial court improperly sentenced him on eight 

different counts of conspiracy to commit various crimes—Counts 3, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in the sentencing order. See Sentencing Order, 

9/5/15. Appellant contends that he was only charged with and convicted by 

the jury of one count of conspiracy—Count 3 on the criminal information. 

See Information, 12/13/13. The Commonwealth concedes that Appellant’s 

sentences for conspiracy at Counts 10 through 16 were improper and does 

not object to vacating those judgments of sentence and leaving in place only 

his sentence for conspiracy at Count 3. Commonwealth’s Brief at 51-52; 

see also Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088, 1092 (Pa. Super. 

1981) (“[I]t is well-settled law that a defendant can only be convicted of 

crimes with which he was charged in the indictment or information, or 

lesser-included offenses of those crimes.”).

Therefore, we vacate Appellant’s sentences for conspiracy at Counts 

10 through 16 but do not disturb his sentence at Count 3. Because 

Appellant’s sentence of 1 to 2 years of incarceration for conspiracy was for 

Count 12 and his sentence for conspiracy at Count 3 was ordered to be 

served concurrently with his sentence for attempted murder, vacating 

Appellant’s judgment of sentence at Count 12 has reduced Appellant’s 

aggregate sentence and disrupted the trial court’s sentencing scheme.

Furthermore, Appellant argues that we must vacate his sentences for 

attempted theft and attempted receiving stolen property. Appellant asserts, 
J-A05029-18

- 21 -

inter alia, that his convictions of attempted theft and attempted receiving 

stolen property merge with his conviction of robbery for purposes of 

sentencing. The Commonwealth agrees that these convictions merge with 

Appellant’s conviction of robbery for sentencing purposes. Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 52.

Thus, we vacate Appellant’s judgments of sentence for attempted theft 

and attempted receiving stolen property. Because Appellant received a 

consecutive sentence of 21⁄2 to 5 years of incarceration for his conviction of 

attempted theft, vacating his judgment of sentence for that charge has also 

reduced his aggregate sentence and disrupted the trial court’s sentencing 

scheme. Vacating Appellant’s sentence for attempted receiving stolen 

property does not affect his aggregate sentence because the trial court 

ordered it to be served concurrently with his sentence for attempted theft.

Additionally, Appellant argues that his conviction of PIC merged with 

his conviction of attempted murder for sentencing purposes because they 

are both inchoate crimes. In support of this claim, Appellant cites Section 

906 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, which provides as follows: “A person 

may not be convicted of more than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal 

attempt, criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to 

commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime.” See 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 906. By the plain language of the statute, PIC is not included in 

Section 906. See Commonwealth v. Lee, 566 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. 
J-A05029-18

- 22 -

Super. 1989) (holding that Section 906, which prohibits multiple convictions 

of inchoate crimes, does not include PIC). Accordingly, Appellant’s 

conviction of PIC did not merge with his conviction of attempted murder for 

sentencing purposes.

Lastly, Appellant argues that we should vacate his judgment of 

sentence for aggravated assault because that conviction merged with his 

conviction of attempted murder for sentencing purposes. Once again, the 

Commonwealth concedes that this Court should vacate Appellant’s 

judgement of sentence for aggravated assault. See Commonwealth v. 

Anderson, 650 A.2d 20, 24 (Pa. 1994) (holding that the crimes of 

aggravated assault and attempted murder merge for purposes of 

sentencing). Because the trial court ordered Appellant’s aggravated assault 

conviction to be served concurrently with his attempted murder conviction, 

vacating his judgment of sentence for aggravated assault does not disrupt 

the trial court’s sentencing scheme.

In sum, we vacate Appellant’s sentences for conspiracy (Counts 10 

through 16), attempted theft, attempted receiving stolen property, and 

aggravated assault, and remand for resentencing because vacating 

Appellant’s sentences for conspiracy at Count 12 and attempted theft 

reduces his aggregate sentence and consequently, disrupts the trial court’s 

sentencing scheme. Commonwealth v. McCamey, 154 A.3d 352, 359 (Pa. 

Super. 2017) (resentencing is required where an order from the Superior 
J-A05029-18

- 23 -

Court disrupts the sentencing scheme). To clarify, upon remand, the court 

shall sentence Appellant for the following convictions:

Count 1 – Criminal Attempt (Murder) – 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 2502

Count 4 – PIC – 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)

Count 6 – REAP – 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705

Convictions affirmed. Judgment of sentence vacated. As our 

disposition addresses the issues raised in the Commonwealth’s February 26, 

2018 Petition for Leave to File Substituted Brief filed, the Petition is denied

as moot. Case remanded for resentencing consistent with this decision. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/22/18