J

- A21018

- 18

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ALEXANDER DIAZ

Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2137 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 22, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0000992

- 2011

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED OCTOBER 09, 2018
Appellant, Alexander Diaz, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on May 22, 2017, following resentencing on his jury trial convictions
for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PWID), possession

of dru g paraphernalia, and conspiracy. 1 Upon review, we affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. A jury found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned crimes on
December 8, 2011. On April 25, 2012, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
four to eight years of imprisonment for PWID, 10 years of probation for

conspiracy (consecutive to PWID) , and one year of probation for po ssession
of drug paraphernalia ( consecutive to the other two sentences ) . On March

16, 2017, th is Court vacated Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remanded

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 35 P.S. § 780

- 113(a)(30), 35 P.S. § 7 80

- 113(a)(32), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903, respectively.J

- A21018

- 18

- 2

-

the matter for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Diaz , 168 A.3d 318
(Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum). In that decision, we
determined that the trial court erred in imposing a manda tory minimum

sentence for PWID under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6317 (drug

- free school zones). Upon
remand, on May 22, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 30 to 9 0
months of imprisonment for PWID, with a consecutive term of 10 years of
probation for conspira cy, and one year of probation for possession of drug
paraphernalia, concurrent to his sentence for conspiracy

. This timely appeal

resulted. 2

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 At the conclusion of his re

- sentencing hearing, Appellant signed a statement acknowledging he received an explanation of his post

- sentence r ights. N.T., 5/22/2017, at 11. Counsel for Appellant did not object to the new sentence as excessive at the resentencing hearing and did not file a post

- sentence motion to reconsider Appellant’s new sentence. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal wh ile incarcerated, despite his representation by counsel. “ While hybrid representation is generally not permitted, our Supreme Court has held that a pro se notice of appeal from a judgment of sentence filed by a represented appellant is not automatically v oid .” Commonwealth v. Johnson , 2018 WL 3197588, at *2 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, we deem a pro se prisoner's document filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing, in this case, June 19, 2017. See id. Thus, we deem the appeal timely. Appellant also filed a pro se concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on July 24, 2017. On October 23, 2017, this Court entered a per curia m order remanding the matter to the trial court because court

- appointed trial counsel failed to file a timely criminal docket statement with this Court and did not respond to this Court’s correspondence. We directed the trial court to determine whether tr ial counsel abandoned Appellant and, if so, whether Appellant was eligible for new, court

- appointed counsel. On November 14, 2017, the trial court appointed Tiffany Griffin, Esquire to represent Appellant. Attorney Griffin did not seek nunc pro tunc reli ef to file a post

- sentence motion on Appellant’s behalf.J

- A21018

- 18

- 3

-

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

1. Is it not evident [that] Appellant’s sentence of 30 months to 90 months is in gross excess of the standard range, which is [three] months to 12 months [of] incarceration , that the [trial] court erred by applying the school zone enhancement for sentencing purposes?

2. Without explanation, did the [trial] court’s sentence of 21⁄2 to 71⁄2 years’ incarceration for the [PWID] conviction [of] 0.11 grams of a schedule I controlled substance, wildly deviate from the standard range, and its unduly harsh 10

- year consecutive probation for [Appellant’s] [c]onspiracy con viction prove an abuse of the court’s discretion.

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Both of Appellant’s issues involve the discretionary aspects of

sentencing. Th e application of a sentencing enhancement for selling drugs

near a school zone implicates the dis cretionary aspects of sentencing :
[E] nhancements only direct a sentencing court to consider a different range of potential minimum sentences, while preserving a trial court's discretion to fashion an individual sentence. By their very character, sentencing enhancements do not share the attributes of a mandatory minimum sentence that the Supreme Court held to be elements of the offense that must be submitted to a jury. The enhancements do not bind a trial court to any particular sentencing floor, nor do they compel a trial court in any given case to impose a sentence higher than the court believes is warranted. They require only that a court consider a higher range of possible minimum sentences. Even then, the trial court need not sentence within that range; the court only must consider it.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ Instead, she filed a supplemental concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on January 30, 2018. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on April 9, 2018.J

- A21018

- 18

- 4

-

Commonwealth v. Ali , 112 A.3d 1210, 1226 (Pa. Super. 2015) (emphasis

in original), vacated and remanded on other grounds , 149 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2016)

(examining the admissibility of victim impact testimony at sentencing)

.

Mor eover, Appellant ’s second claim that the trial court imposed an excessive

sentence , above the standard sentencing guideline rang e, also implicates the

discretionary aspects of sentencing

. See Commonwealth v. Antidormi , 84

A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( “ The sentencing guidelines are not

mandatory , and sentencing courts retain broad discretion in sentencing

matters, and therefore, may s entence defendants outside the guidelines.”).

This Court has previously determined:

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court's jurisdiction by satisfying a four

- part test:

[W]e conduct a four

- part analysis to determin e: (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, 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, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Patterson , 180 A.3d 1217, 1232 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(internal case citation omitted).

Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and included in his brief

a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appealJ

- A21018

- 18

- 5

-

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). However, Appel lant failed to raise either the

school

- zone enhancement or excessiveness of sentence claims at the

resentencing hearing or in a post

- sentence motion. “ [I]ssues challenging the

discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post

- sentence motion

o r by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings.

Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is

waived .” Commonwealth v. Heaster , 171 A.3d 268, 272 (Pa. Super. 2017)

. Accordingly, Appellant wai ved his challen ge s to the trial court’s sentencing

discretion

. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/9/18