J-S63027-18

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

WILLIAM RONDELL JACKSON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 482 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 23, 2018

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

No(s): CP-11-CR-0000828-2017

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

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 18, 2018

William Jackson (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after a jury found him guilty of simple assault.

1

 We affirm. 

The trial court summarized the underlying facts:

On December 21, 2016, Detective Daniel Fisher, Johnstown 

Police Department, responded to a call for service at 131 Plainfield 

Ave., Johnstown, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, to investigate a 

reported crime. After interviewing the involved parties, Det. 

Fisher learned that [Appellant] entered 131 Plainfield Ave. and got 

into an argument with [the victim]. Eventually the argument 

turned into a fight and [Appellant] struck [the victim] in the face. 

[Appellant] ran out [of] the house, and [the victim] called 911.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/18, at 1-2. 

Appellant was charged with several crimes as a result of the December 

21, 2016 incident. A one-day jury trial was held on February 13, 2018, after 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3). 
J-S63027-18

- 2 -

which the jury Appellant convicted Appellant of a single count of simple 

assault. The trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a presentence investigation report. On March 23, 2018, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to one to two years of incarceration in a state correctional

institution. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. On April 2, 2018, 

Appellant filed this timely appeal. Both the trial court and Appellant have 

complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

Appellant presents a single issue for our review: 

Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by sentencing the 

Appellant to a state sentence as opposed to a county sentence 

despite the fact that the Appellant had been incarcerated for 

nearly a year. In addition, whether the Trial Court entered an 

excessive sentence in light of the fact that the Appellant was 

acquitted of all serious charges, but for a simple assault charge. 

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his 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), 

appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “An appellant must satisfy a fourpart 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 
J-S63027-18

- 3 -

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. 

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

omitted), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014). 

Instantly, Appellant has failed to comply with the first prong of the test 

because he failed to raise his sentencing issue at sentencing or in a postsentence motion. His issue is therefore waived. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302 mandates that “issues not 

raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal.” Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) 

(internal citation omitted). This Court has stated: 

[I]ssues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must 

be raised in a post-sentence motion or 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. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(internal citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Yockey, 158 A.3d 

1246, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2017), (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)) 

(“Appellant did not preserve his discretionary aspects of sentencing claim at 

sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. Therefore, the claim is waived.”). 

Our review of the record reveals that in addition to not filing a postsentence motion, Appellant did not raise his sentencing issue with the trial 

court at sentencing. See N.T., 3/23/18, at 1-12. As Appellant has not 

properly preserved his sentencing claim, the issue is waived. 
J-S63027-18

- 4 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2018