J-S33026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSEPH WALTER HOGG 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1100 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 11, 2022

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

No(s): CP-02-CR-0004215-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 8, 2023

Joseph Walter Hogg (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas after his negotiated 

guilty plea to one count each of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and 

burglary, and two counts of recklessly endangering another person (REAP).1 

On appeal, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, 

arguing the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors and his 

rehabilitative needs. We affirm. 

The facts underlying Appellant’s guilty plea were summarized at the plea 

hearing as follows:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 2501(a), 2702(a)(1), 3502(a)(1)(i), and 2705, 

respectively.
J-S33026-23

- 2 -

[O]n or about May 2nd of 2021 at approximately 8:30 p.m. 

[Pittsburgh police] officers were dispatched to . . . Spring Garden 

Road in the City of Pittsburgh . . . for a report of shots fired[ at 

the home of Brenna Richards (Victim). Appellant,] a former 

intimate partner of [Victim], came to her residence [and] kicked 

in her door. When [Victim] encountered [Appellant, he] had his 

hands outstretched in front of him holding a firearm. [V]ictim’s

two children, ages 6 and 8[,] were present in the home when 

[Appellant] unlawfully entered. [V]ictim screamed for the children 

to get help. At that point [Appellant] told her to shut up. [Victim] 

took a defensive position on the floor, sitting on her backside 

bringing her knees to her chest, tucking her head down and 

placing her hands over her eyes. At that point her children were

approximately five feet away . . . directly behind her. 

[Appellant] then stood over [Victim] with a firearm still in 

his hand and from approximately one-and-a half feet away shot 

her in the head three times. The bullets entered the left side of 

her face near her eyes, her temple, and her ear.[2]

After [Appellant] shot [Victim] three times, he fled from the 

residence[ and] disposed of the firearm along his route to the City 

of Pittsburgh as he was going to his parents’ house.

There were two 911 calls placed[,] one from the neighbor of 

[Victim,] who rendered aid while police were responding to the 

scene, and a second 911 call placed by [Appellant,] alerting 

dispatchers to what he had just done. [Later that evening, police 

took Appellant into custody and during an audio recorded 

interview with investigating officers, Appellant] admit[ted] to the 

crimes.

[Appellant’s] use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of 

[Victim’s] body . . . is evidence of his intent to kill her. . . .

N.T. Guilty Plea, 4/27/22, at 6-9. 

____________________________________________

2 At sentencing, Victim testified Appellant shot her four times: thrice in the 

head and once in the leg. N.T. Sentencing, 8/11/22, at 12, 14.
J-S33026-23

- 3 -

On April 27, 2022, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one 

count each of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and burglary, and two 

counts of REAP.3 There was no agreement as to a sentence. 

On August 11, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Victim 

testified about the lasting impact of the attack on both her and her children, 

and her permanent injuries to her jaw, hand, and eye, as well as internal 

injuries she suffered. See N.T. Sentencing at 12-14. She also stated 

Appellant had many “chance[s]” to reconsider his actions — “to stop before 

he walked to [her] house” or came through the door, “to stop after each 

bullet,” and “to call for help for the children.” Id. at 13-14. The

Commonwealth recommended a guideline range sentence of 10 to 20 years’ 

incarceration plus a term of probation, to be determined within the trial court’s 

discretion. Id. at 17.

Appellant exercised his right to allocution, apologized for his actions and 

“being too ashamed to tell everyone [he] needed help[,]” and stated he was 

“working every day on [him]self” to be better. N.T. Sentencing at 9-10. 

Appellant also submitted to the court an extensive sentencing memorandum, 

which included, inter alia: (1) statements of remorse and taking responsibility

for his actions; (2) references to his “tumultuous” relationship with Victim; (3) 

allegations that Victim emotionally and physically “abuse[d]” him and was 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant was initially charged with two counts of burglary. He pleaded guilty 

to one count under subsection 3502(a)(1)(i). The Commonwealth withdrew 

the remaining charge of burglary under subsection 3502(a)(1)(ii). 
J-S33026-23

- 4 -

violent towards him — which resulted in two protection from abuse (PFA) 

orders against Victim; (4) his own description of the “circumstances” which 

lead him to shoot Victim; (5) letters from family and friends about his 

character and his “importance to their community[;]” and (6) his own 13 page 

statement that he has “demonstrated his ability to change.” See Appellant’s 

Sentencing Memorandum, 8/5/22, at 2-6 (unpaginated).

The trial court reviewed the presentence investigation (PSI) report and 

recognized Appellant accepted responsibility for his actions. However, it also 

addressed him as follows:

You did save us the cost of a trial and you accepted responsibility 

for this, but at the same time you shot somebody three times in 

the head. [The Commonwealth] is right, by the grace of God 

[Victim] is still alive. Plus you hit her in the leg. And the children 

were right there. You kicked down the door. It is truly a miracle 

she is still alive.

And while you did take responsibility, the gravity of this 

offense, and just the cold[ ]heartedness of this that you just 

kicked the door down and shot her four times. 

See N.T. Sentencing at 20.

The trial court sentenced Appellant to: (1) seven to 14 years’ 

incarceration for attempted homicide; (2) a consecutive term of one to two 

years’ incarceration for burglary; and (3) two consecutive terms of two years’ 

probation for the two REAP convictions.4 His aggregate sentence was thus 

eight to 16 years’ incarceration, to be followed by four years’ probation. Each

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s conviction of aggravated assault merged with attempted 

homicide for sentencing purposes. 
J-S33026-23

- 5 -

of Appellant’s sentences was within or below the standard guideline ranges.5 

The court also ordered Appellant to undergo a mental health evaluation and 

to follow recommendations. Appellant did not object to his sentence at the 

hearing, but he did file a timely post-sentence motion, where he averred his 

sentence was excessive based on the facts of the case and his history with 

Victim. See Appellant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence, 8/16/22, at 2 

(unpaginated). The court denied his post-sentence motion and this timely 

appeal followed.6

Appellant raises the following claim for our review:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning a 

manifestly unreasonable and unduly harsh aggregate sentence of 

[eight to] 16 years’ incarceration and four years’ probation, given 

the nature of the offense, the length of such imprisonment and 

probation, and the trial court’s failure to consider [Appellant’s] 

character, personal history, and rehabilitative needs, as required 

by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b)?

Appellant’s Brief at 5. 

____________________________________________

5 Appellant had a prior record score of zero. The offense gravity score of 

attempted homicide is 14, and thus the standard guideline range sentence for 

this crime was six to 20 years’ incarceration. See Appellant’s Guideline 

Sentence Form, 7/27/21, at 1. Burglary has an offense gravity score of 10, 

which provides for a standard guideline range sentence of 22 to 36 months’ 

incarceration and a mitigated range guideline of 10 months’ incarceration. Id.

at 3. REAP has an offense gravity score of 3, and the standard guideline range 

sentence was restorative sanctions to one-month incarceration. Id. at 5-6. 

Thus, the trial court imposed a standard guideline range sentence for 

attempted homicide and each of his REAP convictions, and a mitigated range 

sentence for burglary. 

6 Appellant complied with the trial court’s order to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
J-S33026-23

- 6 -

This claim presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing. Preliminarily, we note:

Generally, a plea of guilty amounts to a waiver of all defects and 

defenses except those concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the 

legality of the sentence, and the validity of the guilty plea.

Commonwealth v. Morrison, 173 A.3d 286, 290 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted). Nevertheless, an appellant who enters an open plea, without an 

agreement as to sentencing, may challenge the discretionary aspects of their 

sentence on appeal. Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149, 1159 (Pa. 

Super. 2017). However, it is well established that such a claim does not entitle 

an appellant to “review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 

763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc). Rather,

[a]n appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a fourpart test: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal,

see Pa.R.A.P. 902[7] 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.

Id. (citation omitted).

Here, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his claim in a 

post-sentence motion, and included in his brief a Rule 2119(f) statement. 

Thus, we next must determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial 

question. This issue must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. See

____________________________________________

7 Amended May 18, 2023.
J-S33026-23

- 7 -

Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 338 (Pa. Super. 2015). “A 

substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable 

argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent 

with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the 

fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id. at 338

(citation omitted).

A claim that a sentence is excessive where the sentences are all 

consecutive and within the guideline range generally does not raise a 

substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 

587 (Pa. Super. 2010). However, this Court has held that “an excessive 

sentence claim — in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to 

consider mitigating factors — raises a substantial question.” Swope, 123 

A.3d at 339 (citations omitted). Further, an assertion that the imposition of 

a consecutive sentence coupled with the claim that the trial court did not 

consider a defendant’s rehabilitative needs also presents a substantial

question for our review. See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770. In determining 

whether a substantial question exists, this Court does not examine the merits 

of whether the sentence is excessive; “[r]ather, we look to whether the 

appellant has forwarded a plausible argument that the sentence, when it is 

within the guideline ranges, is clearly unreasonable.” Swope, 123 A.3d at 

340 (citations omitted).

Here, Appellant avers he raises a substantial question because even 

though each of his sentences were in the mitigated or standard ranges, the 
J-S33026-23

- 8 -

trial court’s application of the sentencing guidelines under the present 

circumstances was unreasonable. Appellant’s Brief at 18. He maintains the 

trial court failed to consider the following mitigating factors: (1) his 

“tumultuous relationship” with Victim; (2) his “genuine remorse for his 

actions[;]” (3) his filing for several PFA orders against Victim before this 

incident; and (4) “countless letters and testimonials speaking to his good 

character and value in the community.” Id. at 19-20. He asserted that in 

light of these factors, his rehabilitative needs, and the sentencing guidelines, 

his aggregate sentence was excessive. See id. at 21-22. 

The Commonwealth argues Appellant did not present a substantial 

question as he did not claim that the trial court violated the Sentencing Code. 

Commonwealth Brief at 8. Appellant filed a reply brief, maintaining he did 

raise a substantial question when he alleged the court “failed to consider 

mandatory . . . factors under the Sentencing Code.” Appellant’s Rely Brief at 

2. 

We conclude Appellant’s claim that the trial court imposed an excessive 

aggregate sentence without considering mitigating factors and his 

rehabilitative needs has presented a substantial question for our review. See 

Swope, 123 A.3d at 339; See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770. As such, we 

continue with our analysis. 

We consider the following standard of review:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal 

absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse 
J-S33026-23

- 9 -

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.

Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 (citation omitted). “[W]hen imposing sentence, 

the trial court is granted broad discretion, as it is in the best position to 

determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation 

of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 

A.3d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). 

The trial court must consider the factors set out in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b)

when imposing a sentence, which includes “the protection of the public, 

gravity of offense in relation to impact on the victim and community, and 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Clemat, 218 A.3d 

944, 960 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). 

Additionally, it is well-settled that the decision to impose consecutive or 

concurrent sentences is within the trial court’s sole discretion. See 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9721(a). Additionally, “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. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation 

omitted).

Lastly, we note:
J-S33026-23

- 10 -

[A]lthough [a] sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy 

discourse for its reasons for imposing a sentence, . . . the record 

as a whole must reflect the sentencing court’s consideration of the 

facts of the crime and character of the offender.

Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867, 876 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation

& quotation marks omitted). “[A] sentencing judge may satisfy requirement 

of disclosure on the record of his reasons for imposition of a particular 

sentence without providing a detailed, highly technical statement.” 

Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498, 514 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation 

omitted).

Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

imposed each of his sentences consecutively, without considering the 

sentencing factors under section 9721(b), other mitigating factors, and his 

rehabilitative needs. Appellant’s Brief at 23. Appellant also maintains the trial 

court did not properly include its reasons for the sentence on the record. See 

id. at 24-25. Specifically, he insists that the trial court did not mention his 

mental health concerns or his rehabilitative needs, and did not consider that 

he was “highly unlikely to pose a threat to the public” or reoffend. Id. at 26-

27. Appellant also maintains the trial court’s “mischaracterization” of his 

behavior as “cold[ ]hearted” was “problematic” since the evidence provided at 

sentencing demonstrated he was “struggling with his mental health” and acted 

“wildly out of his character.” Id. at 29-30. 

The trial court concluded that after reviewing the PSI report, Appellant’s 

extensive sentencing memorandum, and the relevant factors of the 

sentencing code, it did not abuse its discretion in imposing his sentence. Trial 
J-S33026-23

- 11 -

Ct. Op., 1/17/23, at 3, 5. Specifically, it stated it considered the following 

evidence:

In this case, consideration was given to the relevant factors as 

required by the Sentencing [C]ode. Initially, it is noted that the 

gravity of the offense and the impact on [V]ictim was significant. 

[V]ictim described having permanent jaw pain, internal injuries 

and damage to her eye and hand. It is also clear that while 

[Appellant] expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for 

[shooting Victim], he nonetheless placed significant blame for the

shooting on what he repeatedly characterized throughout his 

written statement as the violent nature of [V]ictim.

In [Appellant’s] statement he described in detail what he 

characterized as a difficult relationship with [V]ictim that he 

claimed was fueled by [V]ictim’s jealousy and intoxication. 

[Appellant] initially described a good relationship that began prior 

to November of 2018 when they moved in together, but then 

deteriorated. However, despite the deterioration of the

relationship, [Appellant] willingly continued in the relationship, 

even traveling to Florida together following the PFA petitions 

referenced in the Sentencing Memorandum. It is important to 

note that [Appellant] also describes the turning point in the 

relationship on April 28, 2021, just days before the shooting, when 

[V]ictim informed him that that she had been dating someone else

since December of 2020 and he, in turn, contacted a woman and 

initiated a date of his own on May 2, 2021. 

It was following phone calls, messages and exchanges 

between [Appellant] and [V]ictim on May 2[nd] that [Appellant] 

went to [V]ictim’s home, purportedly to retrieve some keys, and 

kicked in the door, confronted [V]ictim, and ultimately shot her 

repeatedly in the head. [Appellant] contended that he “didn't 

realize what happened until I seen blood on her chest.”

The therapy records submitted reflect a recognition by 

[Appellant] of the “toxic” nature of their relationship but also 

indicate that [Appellant] wanted to “work on my anger” as well as 

his “anger reaction” to [V]ictim. The fact that the shooting of 

[V]ictim followed shortly after what appeared to be a disclosure of 

her relationship with someone else and her apparent interference 

with his attempts at a new relationship indicate that this shooting 

was not a spontaneous reaction caused by violence directed at 
J-S33026-23

- 12 -

him by [V]ictim. The Commonwealth noted that [Appellant] left 

his home and drove, with his gun, to [V]ictim’s house, kicked in 

the door and shot her repeatedly in front of her children. [V]ictim 

correctly noted that [Appellant] had the opportunity to stop before 

coming to her house, before kicking in the door and before 

shooting her repeatedly. She also noted that after shooting her 

he walked away. The Commonwealth requested a sentence 

consistent with the guidelines of 10 to 20 years plus a period of 

probation. 

Id. at 5-6 (citations to the record omitted & paragraph break added).

The trial court also recognized that Appellant accepted responsibility for 

the shooting, had immense support from friends and family, did not have a 

prior record score, and was an “ideal inmate[.]” Trial Ct. Op. at 6. However, 

after considering the extensive evidence above,

there was little to dispute about the fact and the manner in which 

[Appellant] shot [V]ictim and there was no evidence that his 

actions that night were prompted by any imminent threat from 

[V]ictim. As noted at sentencing, the gravity of the offense and 

permanent impact of the physical injuries on [V]ictim. It was 

noted that [Appellant’s] conduct which included the 

“cold[ ]heartedness of this that you [sic] just kicked the door 

down and shot her four times” could not be minimized. 

Id. (citations to the record omitted). 

We agree with the trial court that it did not abuse its discretion. We 

recognize, as Appellant argued, that the court did not engage in a detailed 

recitation of facts before imposing his sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 24-

27. However, the court was not required to partake in a “lengthy discourse” 

where the record “as a whole” reflected adequate reasoning for the sentence. 

See Flowers, 149 A.3d at 876; Hunzer, 868 A.2d at 514. Here, the record 

reflected the court had the benefit of a PSI report, and thus we presume it 
J-S33026-23

- 13 -

“was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character 

and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” 

See Bankes, 286 A.3d at 1307. The court also considered the detailed 

sentencing memorandum from Appellant himself. It then imposed standard 

and mitigated range sentences for his convictions. It merits mention that the 

court also imposed a sentence shorter than what the Commonwealth 

suggested for his conviction of attempted homicide. See N.T. Sentencing at 

17.

We note that in Appellant’s sentencing memorandum, he detailed his 

version of the events which led to him shooting Victim. As the trial court 

pointed out in its opinion, there was no indication that Appellant’s decision to 

shoot her was a “spontaneous reaction caused by violence[.]” See Trial Ct. 

Op. at 6. Instead, we agree with the court’s determination that Appellant’s 

actions were more akin to a planned event, which he could have stopped at 

any time. See id. at 6. We acknowledge, as the trial court did, that Appellant 

has mental health needs; however, as he himself admits, his mental health 

needs do not excuse his chosen course of action — shooting Victim from a foot 

and a half away three times in the head in front of her young children. See

Appellant’s Sentencing Memorandum at 3; N.T. Sentencing at 21; Trial Ct. 

Op. at 5-6. 

Additionally, the trial court’s statement at sentencing did encompass a 

consideration of mitigating factors, the gravity of the offense, the protection 

of the public — which includes Victim and her children — and Appellant’s
J-S33026-23

- 14 -

rehabilitative needs. See N.T. Sentencing at 20-21 (acknowledging Appellant 

took responsibility for his actions, shot Victim three times in the head in the 

presence of her children, and ordered a mental health evaluation). Appellant’s 

disagreement with the level of detail included in this statement or the trial 

court’s decision to impose standard and mitigated range consecutive 

sentences does not amount to an abuse of discretion. See Mulkin, 228 A.3d 

at 917; Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(a). As such, 

we do not disturb the trial court’s ruling on appeal. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

DATE: 12/8/2023