J-S22028-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SHAYLA LYNETTE PIERCE 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1951 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 5, 2019

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0004874-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2020

Shayla Lynette Pierce (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed after she pled nolo contendere to two counts each of 

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (PWID), criminal 

conspiracy, and endangering the welfare of children.1 Upon review, we affirm. 

On January 18, 2018, officers executed a search warrant at Appellant’s 

residence, where Appellant was found with over a pound and a half of 

marijuana, more than two ounces of liquid phencyclidine (PCP) — and two 

minor children. N.T., 9/23/19, at 4-5. 

On September 23, 2019, Appellant pled nolo contendere to the above 

crimes. The trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a pre-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

4304(a)(1). 
J-S22028-20

- 2 -

sentence investigation (PSI) report. On November 5, 2019, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to an aggregate one to three years of incarceration, 

followed by two years of probation. 

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court 

denied on November 21, 2019. This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant 

and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925. 

Appellant presents a single issue for review: 

WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING 

APPELLANT TO AN AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF ONE (1) TO THREE 

(3) YEARS OF INCARCERATION WHERE THE SENTENCE IS 

EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF APPELLANT’S 

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND ROLE AS A MOTHER? 

Appellant’s Brief at 5. 

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of her 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. 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 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) the appellant raises 

a substantial question for our review. 
J-S22028-20

- 3 -

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

omitted). “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) (citations 

omitted).

Appellant has complied with the first three prongs of the test by raising 

her discretionary sentencing claim in a timely post-sentence motion, filing a 

timely notice of appeal, and including in her brief a Rule 2119(f) concise 

statement. See Appellant’s Brief at 11-12. Therefore, we examine whether 

Appellant presents a substantial question for review.

Appellant argues that her sentence is excessive, and asserts that the 

court did not adequately consider her “rehabilitative needs, mental health 

requirements, and role as a mother to four children[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 

12. Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. 

Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“This Court has also held that 

an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court 

failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”) (citations 

omitted). 

In reviewing Appellant’s claim, we recognize:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge. The standard employed when reviewing the 

discretionary aspects of sentencing is very narrow. We may 

reverse only if the sentencing court abused its discretion or 
J-S22028-20

- 4 -

committed an error of law. 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. We must accord 

the sentencing court’s decision great weight because it was in the 

best position to review the defendant’s character, defiance or 

indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime. 

Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11-12 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations 

omitted). 

The relevant portion of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) states: 

In selecting from the alternatives set forth in subsection (a), 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 . . . 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.

Id.

Additionally: 

[i]n imposing sentence, the trial court is required to consider the 

particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the 

defendant. The trial court should refer to the defendant’s prior 

criminal record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for 

rehabilitation. However, where the sentencing judge had the 

benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed 

that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding 

the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along 

with mitigating statutory factors. 

Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758, 767-68 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing

Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004)). 
J-S22028-20

- 5 -

At sentencing, the trial court addressed Appellant, explaining: 

This is not about punishment. It’s trying to find something that 

changes your behavior. I’m just not seeing anything taking you 

off the track that you’ve been on. And then to have these charges, 

which are extremely serious -- as I stated to your counsel, 

basically calling for State incarceration -- from the time of your 

plea to the time of the sentence, I’m not seeing any time that 

you’ve really changed anything. . . . And the evidence-based risk 

assessment puts you in what they call a moderate risk, which is 

probably because of your age. But if we don’t do something, 

you’re going to be spending the rest of your life as a career 

criminal and your children are going to be in and out of foster care 

until they turn 18. And is that how you want your children to be 

raised? . . . What I want to do is give you what it’ll take to turn 

your life around, give you a chance to focus on what you have to 

do so that you can be a better mom so when you come home, you 

get your children, you keep your children, and raise them as a 

good mom. . . . 

I gave you the chance when you were on supervision, because 

these same things that happened pending your sentencing, you 

were actually on probation for. . . . What I’m going to give you is 

the chance you need; it’s not just in the form that you would like. 

. . . I’m going to do it in such a way that you have control as to 

the amount of time that you’re going to have to deal with. You 

can go into this in a positive sort of way or it’ll be a not-so-positive 

sort of way. . . . 

And I’ll try to minimize the minimum sentence that’s going to be 

involved here to give you a chance to really get this squared away. 

All right? And, again, this is based upon the presentence 

investigation; the facts and circumstances that gave rise to these 

charges; and, again, not ignoring the fact that you didn’t act 

alone. There was in our view someone far more culpable than 

you, but you were a willing participant. And as you stated, you 

seem to get excitement from being with dangerous men. That’s 

what you can’t afford when you have children. Those are your 

words in the presentence investigation, and that’s why I think you 

need the opportunity to get yourself squared away. 

N.T., 11/5/19, at 22-24. 

The trial court subsequently opined: 
J-S22028-20

- 6 -

After reviewing Appellant’s evidence-based Presentence 

Investigation and providing Appellant the opportunity to address 

the court at her sentencing hearing, this [c]ourt imposed an 

aggregate sentence of one to three years of incarceration at a 

state correctional institution, followed by two years of county 

probation. Said sentence is well within Appellant’s sentencing 

guidelines. Additionally, this [c]ourt placed several reasons for 

imposing such a sentence on the record at the time of sentencing. 

Some of those reasons include Appellant’s criminal history dating 

back to when she was a juvenile, her lack of insight and poor 

judgment, the misperception of her case within Dauphin County 

Children and Youth Services, and the fact that she engaged in 

criminal behaviors while on probation (on another docket) and 

pending sentencing on the instant docket. Accordingly, this 

[c]ourt did not abuse its discretion by imposing a one to three 

year sentence of incarceration. 

Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/20, at 4. 

Upon review, we discern no error. “[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. Here, in addition to reading and 

referencing the PSI report, the trial court specifically addressed Appellant’s 

rehabilitative needs, the seriousness of her crimes, and the impact of 

Appellant’s actions on her children.

In sum, the record does not support Appellant’s claim that her sentence 

is excessive and unreasonable.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S22028-20

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/08/2020