J-S79039-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

PHILLIP WOLF, :

:

Appellant : No. 2413 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 8, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0008719-2013; 

CP-51-CR-0008816-2013; CP-51-CR-0013764-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 10, 2017

Phillip Wolf (“Wolf”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

following his guilty pleas in three separate cases to one count each of 

aggravated assault by vehicle while driving under the influence, aggravated 

assault by vehicle, and aggravated assault, two counts of driving under the 

influence of a controlled substance, three counts of simple assault, and five 

counts of criminal mischief. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3735.1(a); 3732.1(a); 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a); 

3304(a)(4). We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court set forth the relevant factual history as follows:

On March 2, 2013, [Wolf] was arrested in the 7000 Block of 

Torresdale Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia, following a multivehicle collision with resulting serious injuries caused by [Wolf’s] 

narcotics[-]induced and impaired operation of an automobile 

early that morning. Subsequent to the preliminary arraignment 

and presentation of a prima facie case for the offenses charged 

from that event in the Municipal Court for the First Judicial 
J-S79039-16

- 2 -

District, [Wolf] posted bail and was released from custody on 

August 1, 2013. After formal arraignment in the Court of 

Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, 

multiple felony and misdemeanor charges were docketed under 

CP-51-CR-0008816-2013 and CP-51-CR-0008719-2013 and 

consolidated and listed for trial after several delays.

Inexplicably[,] while awaiting trial, [Wolf] was arrested for 

causing another multi-vehicle crash with serious bodily 

injuries[,] in the area of M Street and Erie Avenue in 

Philadelphia[,] during the early morning hours on October 1, 

2014. [Wolf] was subsequently arraigned for those offenses 

upon presentation of a prima facie case by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania in the Municipal Court for the First Judicial District. 

The additional felony and misdemeanor offenses related to the 

October 1, 2014 collision were docketed under CP-51-CR0013764-2014 and scheduled for trial.

On March 20, 2015, [Wolf] proffered a guilty plea before th[e 

trial c]ourt to limited offenses related to the first collision 

pursuant to negotiations with the Commonwealth for the 

associated cases docketed under CP-51-CR-0008719-2013 and 

CP-51-CR-0008816-2013. There were no negotiations as to 

sentencing recommendations. After written and oral colloquies 

were conducted, th[e trial c]ourt accepted [Wolf’s] proffered 

guilty plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under CP-51-

CR-0008719-2013, [to various charges]. Under CP-51-CR0008816-2013, th[e trial c]ourt accepted [Wolf’s] proffered 

guilty plea to [various crimes].

All remaining charges related to the March 1, 2013 collision were 

subsequently [n]olle [p]rossed pursuant to negotiations. 

Sentencing was deferred until June 4, 2015[,] pending 

completion of the Presentence Investigation, Mental Health 

Assessments and mandatory evaluations concerning the Driving 

Under the Influence offense. 

On June 4, 2015, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. [] 701, [Wolf] 

tendered a guilty plea to th[e trial c]ourt for the limited offenses 

related to the second collision pursuant to negotiation docketed 

under CP-51-CR-0013764-2014. There were no negotiations 

concerning sentencing recommendations. After written and oral 

colloquies were conducted, th[e trial c]ourt accepted [Wolf’s] 
J-S79039-16

- 3 -

proffered guilty plea as knowing, intelligent and voluntary, under 

CP-51-CR-0013764-2014 to [various crimes].

The Commonwealth did not pursue a potential mandatory second 

strike sentence minimum of ten to twenty years’ incarceration 

for CP-51-CR-0013764-2014, although [Wolf] had an 

enumerated qualifying prior first degree felony conviction under 

CP-51-CR-0503721-2005[,] due to lack of notice. 

Notwithstanding the second strike issue, [Wolf] faced a possible 

[] sentence of 121⁄2 years to 281⁄2 years state term of 

incarceration resulting from the second collision. Under CP-51-

CR-0008719-2013 and CP-51-CR-0008816-2013, [Wolf] faced a 

possible sentence of incarceration minimum of 151⁄4 years to 

maximum 31 years. Thus, the aggregate statutory sentencing 

period th[e trial c]ourt could have imposed for all charges 

accepted under the plea [] totaled 27 years minimum to 60 

years maximum terms of incarceration.

Formal Sentencing of [Wolf] as to all pending cases was again 

deferred until July 8, 2015, pending completion of all sentencing 

evaluations, including a Forensic Intensive Recovery Evaluation 

and calculation of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines as 

adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. After 

considering all relevant data[,] including compelling victim 

impact testimony[,] on July 8, 2015, th[e trial court] imposed 

sentence for the charges docketed under ... the first multi-victim 

collision [of] 51⁄2 to 18 years in prison. 

As to the second criminal case docketed under CP-51-CR0013764-2014, which stemmed from the arrest of October 1, 

2014, th[e trial c]ourt sentenced [Wolf] [to an aggregate prison 

term of 8 to 16 years.] ... 

The aggregate sentence related to the second collision was 

directed to run consecutively to the [sentences for the] crimes 

charged from the initial crash on March 2, 2013. Thus, the total 

sentence imposed for all cases was a minimum period of 

confinement of 131⁄2 years to a maximum period of confinement 

of 34 years as designated within the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Prisons. Th[e trial c]ourt directed that 

[Wolf] be given credit for any time served for each sentence as 

calculated by the Philadelphia Prison System.
J-S79039-16

- 4 -

The conditions of each sentence included strict parole 

supervision under the Drug and Alcohol Unit. During the periods 

of parole, [Wolf] was directed to submit to random drug and 

alcohol testing and home checks, maintain legitimate 

employment, attend AA meetings, pay fines and costs; and pay 

victim restitution in the amount of $9,901.85. [Wolf] was 

specifically prohibited from driving any vehicle for the duration of 

th[e trial c]ourt’s period of supervision. [Wolf’s] Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania Driver’s License was suspended for twelve 

months. [Wolf], by and through his trial counsel Alan Sagot, 

Esquire[,] filed a Motion to Reconsider the Sentence on July 17, 

2015[,] which was denied without further hearing on July 21, 

2015.[1]

On August 6, 2015, [Wolf] filed a timely Notice of Appeal. 

[Wolf’s] Statement of Errors[,] in accordance with Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)[,] challenging th[e trial 

c]ourt’s imposition of sentence[,] was filed on November 5, 

2015.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/16, at 1-6 (footnote added).

On appeal, Wolf raises the following question for our review: 

“Whether [Wolf’s] sentence was unduly harsh and unreasonable, an abuse of 

discretion, beyond what is necessary for rehabilitation and protection of the 

community, and imposed without adequate consideration of mitigation 

information[?]” Brief for Appellant at 8.2

 

1 While the docket indicates that the trial court denied a Motion to 

Reconsider the Sentence, the Motion itself was not entered into the docket 

and is not included in the certified record.

2

In its brief, the Commonwealth notes that Wolf waived his claim for failing 

to include the transcript from his sentencing in the certified record. Brief for 

the Commonwealth at 8. However, a review of the record reveals that the 

sentencing transcript has been included.
J-S79039-16

- 5 -

Wolf challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence.3 

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an 

appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 

170 (Pa. Super. 2010). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary 

sentencing issue, 

[this Court conducts] a four part analysis to determine: (1) 

whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see

Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly 

preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify

sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief 

has a fatal defect, [see] Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether 

there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from 

is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, [see] 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). 

Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted).

Here, Wolf filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and included in his appellate 

brief a Concise Statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). However, as noted above, our review of both 

the docket entries and the certified record reveals no Motion for 

Reconsideration of Sentence filed by Wolf. Nevertheless, the trial court, in 

its Opinion, refers to a purported “Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence” 

filed by Wolf on July 17, 2015, but does not identify the issues that were 

raised in the Motion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/16, at 6. Based upon 

the record before us, Wolf has failed to properly preserve his discretionary 

 

3 We note that when there are no sentencing restrictions in the plea 

agreement, the entry of a guilty plea will not preclude a subsequent 

challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing. See Commonwealth 

v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2001).
J-S79039-16

- 6 -

aspects of sentencing claim through the filing of the Motion for 

Reconsideration of Sentence. Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945, 

949-50 (Pa. Super. 2008) (declining to address appellant’s discretionary 

sentencing claim as interpreted in the trial court opinion where the post 

sentence motion was not included in record, nor included in the docket); see 

also id. at 949 (stating that this Court may not rely on assertions in an 

appellate brief or a trial court opinion and that it is appellant’s duty to 

ensure the certified record contains the necessary documents for our 

review). Moreover, Wolf did not raise a challenge to his sentence during the 

sentencing hearing. Accordingly, Wolf’s discretionary aspects of sentencing 

claim cannot be reviewed. See Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 

365, 371 (Pa. Super. 2012).4

Appeal dismissed.

 

4 At sentencing, the trial court had the benefit of a pre-investigation report. 

See N.T., 7/8/15, at 5-6, 58; see also Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/16, at 10-

11, 15, 16. Where “the sentencing court had the benefit of a pre-sentence 

investigation report, 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.” Commonwealth v. 

Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912, 919 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). Further, in sentencing Wolf, the trial court considered the 

Sentencing Guidelines, the impact on the victims, Wolf’s allocution, his 

mental health evaluations, his prior criminal history, his education and 

employment history, his history of drug and alcohol abuse, his rehabilitative 

needs, and his acceptance of guilt by pleading guilty. See N.T., 7/8/15, at 

6-9, 14-15, 21-22, 24-25, 26, 36-38, 41, 44-56, 57, 58-59; see also Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/29/16, at 10-11, 15-17.
J-S79039-16

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/10/2017