J-A23032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANTHONY GAMBIRAZIO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 22 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 6, 2022

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

No(s): CP-40-CR-0003034-2021

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2023

Anthony Gambirazio appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

August 4, 2022, in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history as set forth by the trial court 

are as follows: 

On April 21, 2022, Defendant, Anthony Gambirazio, was 

convicted of aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit aggravated 

assault, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, simple assault 

and theft by unlawful taking following a jury trial. Defendant and 

another individual took the victim’s cell phone and U.S. currency 

from his person while beating him in the stairwell of his 

apartment. Defendant also shot the victim.

Sentencing occurred on August 4, 2022. Defendant received 

66 to 132 months on the aggravated assault conviction, 54 

months to 108 months on the conspiracy to commit aggravated 

assault conviction, 60 to 120 months on the robbery conviction 

and 48 to 96 on the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction. All 

of the sentences were to run consecutively. No sentences were 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23032-23

- 2 -

imposed on the simple assault and theft convictions due to 

merger. All sentences were within the standard range of the 

guidelines and Defendant received credit for serving 430 days of 

incarceration prior to sentencing.

On August 10, 2022, a post sentence motion to modify 

sentence was filed on behalf of Defendant. This motion only 

sought a modification and reconsideration of sentence. By order 

dated December 5, 2022, the motion was denied.

A timely notice of appeal was filed on January 3, 2023. An 

order was then issued by [the trial c]ourt on January 4, 2023 

which required that a concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) be filed by Defendant 

within twenty-one days. Appellate counsel complied with the order 

by filing a concise statement on January 17, 2023. In the 

statement counsel raised twenty issues, many of which have no 

applicability to this case.

Tr. Ct. Op. at 1-2. On February 13, 2023, the trial court filed its opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1). 

Appellant’s first issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying 

Appellant’s public defender’s request to withdraw as counsel. Appellant’s Br. 

at 13. Specifically, Appellant argues that because the Luzerne County Public 

Defender’s Office was representing both Appellant and his victim, there was 

an alleged conflict of interest. Appellant’s Br. at 16. 

In order to preserve an issue for appellate review it must be raised 

by the appellant in a Rule 1925(b) statement filed at the lower 

court's direction. Any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) 

statement are deemed waived. The facilitation of appellate review 

requires that the trial court be afforded the opportunity to address 

the issues raised on appeal. When an appellant fails adequately to 

identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on 

appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal 

analysis which is pertinent to those issues. An issue not identified 

for review in a Rule 1925(b) statement is waived whether or not 

the lower court actually addresses the issue in an opinion.
J-A23032-23

- 3 -

In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa. Super. 2000) (internal 

citations omitted). 

Here, Appellant raised twenty issues in his Rule 1925(b) statement, 

many of them being patently irrelevant to the instant case.1 However, a close 

review of each paragraph reveals that Appellant did not include a challenge to 

the trial court’s denial of his public defender’s motion to withdraw in the 

1925(b) statement. Thus, Appellant has waived this claim and we will not 

address the merits.2

Appellant's second claim challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. Appellant’s Br. at 17. Specifically, he argues that his sentence of 

228 months to 456 months of incarceration was not necessary to address the 

nature and circumstances of the crime. Id. at 18. Additionally, Appellant 

argues that the trial court gave undue weight to retribution over rehabilitation, 

deterrence, and incapacitation, and undervalued mitigating evidence from 

Appellant’s past. Id. at 19-21. We find that Appellant has waived this claim.

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging 

____________________________________________

1 For example, three of the issues raised are that the trial court abused its 

discretion by (1) denying Appellant’s motion in limine, (2) allowing the 

Commonwealth to admit social media posts into evidence without proper 

authentication, and (3) refusing to instruct the jury with jury instructions 

submitted by Appellant. 1925(b) Statement, 1/17/23, at ¶¶ 4, 5, 8. However, 

Appellant filed no motions in limine, the Commonwealth presented no social 

media evidence, and Appellant submitted no jury instructions in this case.

2 We note that the trial court’s order complied with the requirements of 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3).
J-A23032-23

- 4 -

the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court's 

jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

[the] 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 [the] 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.[] § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Durazo, 210 A.3d 316, 319-20 (Pa. Super. 2019) 

(citation omitted; bracketing in original).

Appellant's issue has been waived because Appellant has failed to 

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). The Commonwealth has objected to this 

failure. Appellee’s Br. at 8 (“Appellant must include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) 

statement in his brief. Appellant did not include such a statement. Therefore, 

this issue is waived.”). When the Commonwealth objects to this defect, we 

may not overlook the failure. Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 533 

(Pa. Super. 2004) (stating that this Court may “determine if there is a 

substantial question” even in the absence of a Rule 2119(f) statement, but 

“this option is lost if the appellee objects”). We therefore find that Appellant 

has waived this claim.

Accordingly, since both of Appellant’s claims are waived, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-A23032-23

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/01/2023