J-S27007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SHAWN D. STRYKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 173 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2022

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0000430-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

Appellant, Shawn D. Stryker, appeals from the aggregate judgment of 

sentence of 6 to 20 years’ incarceration, imposed after he pled guilty to six

counts of aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(2), (a)(3), and 

(a)(6), as well as single counts of recklessly endangering another person, 18

Pa.C.S. § 2705, and possessing an instrument of crime, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b). 

On appeal, Appellant solely contends that the trial court abused its discretion 

in fashioning his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the facts and procedural 

history underlying Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce in full

herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 3/27/22, at 1-7. We only briefly note 

that Appellant’s convictions stemmed from a standoff with police during which 

Appellant fired shots at two of the officers, who were thankfully unharmed. 

Appellant was initially deemed incompetent to stand trial and was committed 
J-S27007-23

- 2 -

to a state mental hospital for nearly one year before he was deemed to be

competent to proceed. Appellant pled guilty to the above-stated offenses on 

September 16, 2022. After a pre-sentence investigation report was 

completed, the court sentenced Appellant on December 29, 2022, to the 

aggregate term set forth supra, which included two, consecutive terms of 3 to 

10 years’ imprisonment for two of his aggravated assault convictions. 

Appellant received concurrent terms of 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment for his 

remaining aggravated assault offenses, and no further sentence of 

incarceration for his other convictions. 

Appellant filed a timely, post-sentence motion, which the court 

ultimately denied. He then filed a timely notice of appeal, and he complied 

with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on 

March 27, 2022. Herein, Appellant states one issue for our review:

I. Was the trial court’s aggregate sentence of 6 to 20 years of 

incarceration so manifestly excessive under the circumstances of 

the instant case, especially considering [Appellant’s] severe 

mental health issues at the time of the incident, and was the 

imposition of consecutive sentences an abuse of the court’s 

discretion?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Appellant’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to review as of right. Commonwealth v. 

Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). An appellant 

challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke 

this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:
J-S27007-23

- 3 -

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. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2006), 

appeal denied, ... 909 A.2d 303 ([Pa.] 2006). Objections to the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they 

are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify 

the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 

794 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, ... 831 A.2d 599 ([Pa.] 

2003).

The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul,

925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa. Super. 2007). 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.” 

Sierra, supra at 912–13.

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010)).

Instantly, Appellant preserved his sentencing claim in his post-sentence 

motion, he filed a timely appeal, and he has included a Rule 2119(f) statement 

in his appellate brief, thereby meeting the first three requirements for review 

of a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing claim. Regarding the fourth 

requirement of stating a substantial question, Appellant contends that his 

sentence is “clearly unreasonable” and “manifestly excessive” given the 

imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 12. He
J-S27007-23

- 4 -

insists that in imposing consecutive sentences, the court failed to consider his 

“incompetency at the time of the offense and his drastic improvement while 

receiving treatment and medication....” Id. at 13-14. We agree with Appellant 

that his argument constitutes a substantial question for our review. See 

Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[A]n 

excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court 

failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.”) (citation

omitted); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 

2015) (finding that Caldwell’s “challenge to the imposition of his consecutive 

sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the court failed to 

consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its sentence, presents a 

substantial question”).

In reviewing the merits of Appellant’s sentencing challenge, we are 

mindful that,

[s]entencing 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 

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.

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Instantly, in assessing Appellant’s claim that his aggregate term of 

incarceration is excessive and unreasonable, we have reviewed the arguments 

set forth in his brief, the Commonwealth’s response, the certified record, and 
J-S27007-23

- 5 -

the applicable law. We have also examined the thorough opinion of the 

Honorable Jeffery D. Wright of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster 

County. We conclude that Judge Wright’s analysis demonstrates that he 

carefully considered the Sentencing Guidelines, the information set forth in 

Appellant’s presentence report, the mitigating circumstances and 

characteristics of Appellant, his rehabilitative needs, the seriousness of the

offenses, and the protection of the public. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9781(d). We discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Wright’s 

decision to impose consecutive sentences, or in the aggregate term of 

incarceration he fashioned in this case. Thus, we adopt Judge Wright’s opinion

as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set 

forth therein.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 10/11/2023
Circulated 09/13/2023 01:31 PM 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

SHAWN D. STRYKER 

BY; WRIGHT, J. 

0430-2021 

PA. R.A .P. 192$ OPINION 

1•-

March 2 • 2022 

Shawn D. Stryker (" Appellant") has filed a direct appeal to the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania from the Judgment of Sentence imposed on December 

29, 2022, as finalized by my January 23, 2023, Order denying his Post Sentence 

Motion. This Opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is 

without merit and should be denied. 

BACKGROUND

On January 3, 2021, West Hempfield Township Police Officers were 

dispatched to 501 Goldfinch Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to investigate a 

domestic incident. ( Criminal Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Jan. G, 

2021, at ¶ 1), The 911 caller, Rebecca Valentine, told the dispatcher that 

Appellant, her paramour, was " unstable and armed with a rifle ... and a 

1 

Circulated 09/13/2023 01.31 PM 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

0430-2021 

SHAWN D. STRYKER 

BY: WRIGHT, J 

PA.RA.P. 1925 OPINION 

March 1_" , % 

Shawn D. Stryker ("Appellant") has filed a direct appeal to the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania from the Judgment of Sentence imposed on December 

29, 2022, as finalized by my January 23, 2023, Order denying his Post Sentence 

Motion. This Opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is 

without merit and should be denied. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 3, 2021, West Hempfield Township Police Officers were 

dispatched to 501 Goldfinch Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to investigate a 

domestic incident. (Criminal Complaint, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Jan, 6, 

2021, at 1). The 911 caller, Rebecca Valentine, told the dispatcher that 

Appellant, her paramour, was "unstable ard armed with a rifle . and a 

1 
handgun" and that he was threatening " to harm himself and also pointed one of 

the guns ... at her." (Id.) When Officers arrived at the home, Ms. Valentine 

was leaving the residence but Appellant remained inside. (ld., at ,i 3). The 

responding Officers contacted Appellant by phone and spoke with him for 

approximately seven minutes, asking him to put down any weapons he had and 

to come outside to speak with them. (id..J Appellant refused and the Officers 

began evacuating the residents of neighboring properties for their safety. (Id.,

at , i,i 4-5). 

The Sheriff's Emergency Response Team ( SERT) eventually responded to 

the area and SERT Negotiators again made contact with Appellant by phone. 

(ld.,at , i, 7-10). After repeated demands by the SERT Negotiators, Appellant 

eventually emerged from the residence. However, when he exited, he pointed a 

rifle toward the SERT members. (kl..L a t, 11). A SERT member fired toward 

Appellant and Appellant retreated into the residence. Appellant proceeded to 

fire shots on the SERT members from inside the home. Approximately one hour 

later, Appellant again exited the home and was taken into custody. (Td.) 

Appellant was charged the following offenses: two counts of Aggravated 

Assault- Attempts to Cause or Causes Serious Bodily Injury to Designated 

Individuals, Felonies in the First Degree; two counts of Aggravated AssaultAttempts to Cause or Causes Bodily Injury to Designated Individuals, Felonies in 

the Second Degree; two counts of Aggravated Assault- Causes Fear of 

2 

handgun" and that he was threatening "to harm himself and also pointed one of 

the guns . , at her." (Id.) When Officers arrived at the home, Ms. Valentine 

was leaving the residence but Appellant remained inside. (d.., at I 3), The 

responding Officers contacted Appellant by phone and spoke with him for 

approximately seven minutes, asking him to put down any weapons he had and 

to come outside to speak with them. (d.) Appellant refused and the Officers 

began evacuating the residents of neighboring properties for their safety. (Id, 

at i,i 4-5). 

The Sheriff's Emergency Response Team (SERT) eventually responded to 

the area and SERT Negotiators again made contact with Appellant by phone. 

(d. at ,i, 7-10), After repeated demands by the SERT Negotiators, Appellant 

eventually emerged from the residence. However, when he exited, he pointed a 

rifle toward the SERT members. (d. at, 11). A SERT member fired toward 

Appellant and Appellant retreated into the residence. Appellant proceeded to 

fire shots on the SERT members from inside the home. Approximately one hour 

later, Appellant again exited the home and was taken into custody. (Id.) 

Appellant was charged the following offenses: two counts of Aggravated 

Assault-Attempts to Cause or Causes Serious Bodily Injury to Designated 

Individuals, Felonies in the First Degree; two counts of Aggravated AssaultAttempts to Cause or Causes Bodily Injury to Designated Individuals, Felonies in 

the Second Degree; two counts of Aggravated Assault-Causes Fear of 

2 
Imminent Serious Bodily Injury to Designated Individuals, Felonies of the 

Second Degree; one count of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, a 

Misdemeanor of the Second Degree; and one count of Possession of a Firearm, 

a Misdemeanor of the First Degree.1 

On April 5, 2021, counsel for Appellant, Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire, filed 

a Motion requesting a competency evaluation, alleging, inter alia, that 

Appellant's " mental status [ had] become very fragile," that Appellant 

"believe[d] he was appointed by God as a Six- Star General to do battle with the 

Evil World," and that Appellant was " obsessed with auditory and visual 

hallucinations." ( Motion of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, For a Competency 

Examination, Apr. 5, 2021, at , i,i 1-2). I granted the Motion on April 15, 2021. 

On October 25, 2021, following a stipulation of counsel regarding 

Appellant's competency evaluation, I entered an order accepting the report of 

the evaluating physician and finding Appellant incompetent to proceed. My 

October 25th Order committed Appellant for involuntary inpatient treatment and 

required Appellant to be reevaluated no more than 90 days later, and every 90 

days thereafter until such time as Appellant regained competency to proceed. 

On April 25, 2022, after conferring with Appellant's Counsel and the Assistant 

District Attorney assigned to the matter regarding Appellant's refusal to take 

1 In violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(2); 18 Pa.CS.A.§ 2702(a)(3); 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(6); 18 Pa.CS.A.§ 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(b). 

3 

Imminent Serious Bodily Injury to Designated Ind1v1duals, Felonies of the 

Second Degree; one count of Recklessly Endangering Another Person, a 

Misdemeanor of the Second Degree; and one count of Possession of a Firearm, 

a Misdemeanor of the First Degree.1 

On April 5, 2021, counsel for Appellant, Samuel C Stretton, Esquire, filed 

a Motion requesting a competency evaluation, alleging, inter alia, that 

Appellant's "mental status [had] become very fragile," that Appellant 

"believe[d] he was appointed by God as a Six-Star General to do battle with the 

Evil World," and that Appellant was "obsessed with auditory and visual 

hallucinations." (Motion of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, For a Competency 

Examination, Apr. 5, 2021, at ,l,i 1-2). I granted the Motion on April 15, 2021. 

On October 25, 2021, following a stipulation of counsel regarding 

Appellant's competency evaluation, I entered an order accepting the report of 

the evaluating physician and finding Appellant incompetent to proceed. M 

October 25th Order committed Appellant for involuntary inpatient treatment and 

required Appellant to be reevaluated no more than 90 days later, and every 90 

days thereafter until such time as Appellant regained competency to proceed. 

On April 25, 2022, after conferring with Appellant's Counsel and the Assistant 

District Attorney assigned to the matter regarding Appellant's refusal to take 

I violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5 2702(a)(2); 18 Pa.CS.A.5 2702(a)(3); 18 

Pa.C.S.A. 5 2702(a)(6); 18 Pa.CS.A.5 2705; and 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5 907(b). 

3 
any medication, I entered an Order allowing Appellant's treating physicians to 

administer the appropriate medication to Appellant to treat and overcome his 

psychosis. 

After it was determined that he had regained competency W proceed, 

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges on September 16, 2022. I 

deferred sentencing and ordered a Pre-Sentence Investigation ( PSI). On 

December 29, 2022, following receipt of Appellant's PSI, I sentenced Appellant 

to an aggregate term of 6 tD 20 years SCI as follows: 

Count 1, aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, 

attempted, Officer John Bardo, 3 to 10 years SCI, plus costs. 

Count 2, ag assault, serious bodily injury, attempted, Nelson 

Moreno, 3 to 10 years, plus costs, consecutive to Count 1. 

Counts 3 through 6, attempted ag assault, bodily injury 

attempted, 2 to 10 years SCI each, concurrent with each 

other, concurrent W Count 2, plus costs. 

Count 7, REAP, costs. Count 8, possession of a weapon, 

costs. 

(Notes of Testimony, Sentencing Hearing, Dec. 29, 2022. at 12:18-13:3). 

During the Sentencing Hearing, 1 provided the reasoning behind the 

sentence imposed, explaining: 

Mr. Stryker, under the law, I must look at the sentencing 

options, which are consistent with the protection of the 

public, the gravity of the underlying crimes as they relate to 

our community and, of course, I look at your 

rehabilitative needs. In doing so I've considered the 

nature and circumstances of the underlying crimes, the 

information I have about you from your statement to me, 

4 

any medication, I entered an Order allowing Appellant's treating physicians to 

administer the appropriate medication to Appellant to treat and overcome his 

psychosis. 

After it was determined that he had regained competency to proceed, 

Appellant entered an open guilty plea to all charges on September 16, 2022. I 

deferred sentencing and ordered a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI), On 

December 29, 2022, following receipt of Appellant's PSI, I sentenced Appellant 

to an aggregate term of 6 to 20 years SCI as follows: 

Count 1, aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, 

attempted, Officer John Bardo, 3 to 10 years SCI, plus costs. 

Count 2, ag assault, serious bodily injury, attempted, Nelson 

Moreno, 3 to 10 years, plus costs, consecutive to Count 1 

Counts 3 through 6, attempted ag assault, bodily injury 

attempted, 2 to 10 years SCI each, concurrent with each 

other, concurrent to Count 2, plus costs. 

Count 7, REAP, costs. Count 8, possession of a weapon, 

costs. 

(Notes of Testimony, Sentencing Hearing, Dec. 29, 2022. at 12:18-13:3). 

During the Sentencing Hearing, 1provided the reasoning behind the 

sentence imposed, explaining: 

Mr. Stryker, under the law, I must look at the sentencing 

options, which are consistent with the protection of the 

public, the gravity of the underlying crimes as they relate to 

our community and, of course, I look at your 

rehabilitative neds. In doing so I've considered the 

nature and circumstances of the underlying crimes, the 

information I have about you from your statement to me, 

4 
your daughter's statement, the arguments of counsel and, of 

course, the presentence investigation as well as 

sentencing guidelines, which must be applied as a matter of 

law. 

I've considered all of these factors and impose sentence for 

the following reasons: The [Appellant] is 51 years of age, 

which shows sufficient maturity to understand the 

significance of his acts. The [Appellant] is intelligent enough 

to understand the significance of his acts, since he obtained 

his GED. The [Appellant] has a criminal history consisting of, 

by my count, six prior adult convictions. I've considered 

the presentence report in detail, the guidelines of the 

sentencing code. I've considered the penalties authorized by 

the legislature. I've considered the character of the 

[Appellant], argument of your attorney as well as, again, your 

statement and the statement of your daughter. I've read 

and considered the psychological and psychiatric 

evaluations attached to the PSI. 

Because of prior contacts with the Court, I believe society 

needs to be protected and there needs to be a deterrent and 

there's also the undue risk if given a sentence of probation or 

partial confinement, he will commit another crime. 

Incarceration is warranted because a lesser sentence would 

depreciate the seriousness of the crimes. 

You are in need of correctional treatment that would 

be most effectively provided by your commitment to an 

institution. 

Mr. Stryker, you are alive today for one reason and one 

reason only. On January 3, 2021, Officer John Bardo and 

Officer Nelson Moreno allowed you to live. After you took two 

shots at them, they would have been entirely Justified to 

return that fire to what was, according to the file, a very clear 

and easy target. They didn't do it. They showed restraint. 

They showed the result of thorough training and, most of all, 

they showed mercy. For that I am in awe and for that, for 

every day you have been alive since January 3, 2021 and 

every day you live after, you should show gratitude. 

5 

your daughter's statement, the arguments of counsel and, of 

course, the presentence investigation as well as 

sentencing guidelines, which must be applied as a matter of 

law. 

I've considered all of these factors and impose sentence for 

the following reasons: The [Appellant] is 51 years of age, 

which shows sufficient maturity to understand the 

significance of his acts. The [Appellant] is intelligent enough 

to understand the significance of his acts, since he obtained 

his GED, The [Appellant] has a criminal history consisting of, 

by my count, six prior adult convictions. I've considered 

the presentence report in detail, the guidelines of the 

sentencing code. I've considered the penalties authorized by 

the legislature. I've considered the character of the 

[Appellant], argument of your attorney as well as, again, your 

statement and the statement of your daughter. I've read 

and considered the psychological and psychiatric 

evaluations attached to the PSI. 

Because of prior contacts with the Court, I believe society 

needs to be protected and there needs to be a deterrent and 

there's also the undue risk if given a sentence of probation or 

partial confinement, he will commit another crime. 

Incarceration is warranted because a lesser sentence would 

depreciate the seriousness of the crimes. 

You are in need of correctional treatment that would 

be most effectively provided by your commitment to an 

institution, 

Mr, Stryker, you are alive today for one reason and one 

reason only. On January 3, 2021, Officer John Bardo and 

Officer Nelson Moreno allowed you to live. After you took two 

shots at them, they would have been entirely Justified to 

return that fire to what was, according to the file, a very clear 

and easy target. They didn't do it. They showed restraint. 

They showed the result of thorough training and, most of all, 

they showed mercy. For that I am n awe and for that, for 

every day you have been alive since January 3, 2021 and 

every day you live after, you should show gratitude. 

5 
(I.d.,_at 10: 25-12: 17) ( emphasis supplied). 

Appellant's trial counsel also spoke at the Sentencing Hearing, noting: 

I've known Mr. Stryker for a long time. I've represented him 

on some earlier matters. 

When I first met him, he had a nice business, had a number 

of people working for him and, you know, on the whole, some 

DU!s, but a responsible person. As you can see ... he met 

a woman and got involved with her. She got him involved 

with crystal meth and he was off and running. As you saw 

from the presentence report, he is using almost every day 

until he was arrested in these matters, 

Also, because of the use of crystal meth or in addition to it, 

he developed a psychosis, which continued long after he 

stopped using crystal meth. During that time period, leading 

up to these events, I was talking to him regularly and he was 

telling me about God and he's God's general and he had iD 

fight battles. you can talk tD him rationally at one level and 

at another level, he's out there. 

He was evaluated and at some point they found him 

incompetent. They did the best thing they could for him by 

getting him in Norristown. 

At some point when he didn't take the medication, Your 

Honor, 1 felt, very wisely, ordered him to take the medicine. 

And when he did, it was like a change. People at Norristown 

were shocked how much he changed so quicky when the 

medicine did take effect. 

I've talked to him a number of times since then and he has 

certainly gained a different perspective. He said he just 

wasn't thinking clearly. That's not an excuse. I'm not trying 

to make an excuse. 

6 

(ld, at 10: 25-12: 17) (emphasis supplied). 

Appellant's trial counsel also spoke at the Sentencing Hearing, noting: 

I've known Mr. Stryker for a long time. I've represented him 

on some earlier matters. 

When I first met him, he had a nice business, had a number 

of people working for him and, you know, on the whole, some 

DU!s, but a responsible person. As you can see . . he met 

a woman and got involved with her. She got him involved 

with crystal meth and he was off and running. As you saw 

from the presentence report, he is using almost every day 

until he was arrested n these matters, 

Also, because of the use of crystal meth or in addition to it, 

he developed a psychosis, which continued long after he 

stopped using crystal meth. During that time period, leading 

up to these events, I was talking to him regularly and he was 

telling me about God and he's God's general and he had to 

fight battles. you can talk to him rationally at one level and 

at another level, he's out there. 

# 

He was evaluated and at some point they found him 

incompetent. They did the best thing they could for him by 

getting him in Norristown. 

At some point when he didn't take the medication, Your 

Honor, 1 felt, very wisely, ordered him to take the medicine. 

And when he did, t was like a change. People at Norristown 

were shocked how much he changed so quicky when the 

medicine did take effect. 

I've talked to him a number of times since then and he has 

certainly gained a different perspective. He said he just 

wasn't thinking dearly. That's not an excuse, Im not trying 

to make an excuse. 

#% 

6 
It's a serious case. You can't go around shooting at police 

officers. Lucky no one was injured, killed. Lucky he wasn't 

killed in this particular matter. Not acceptable, 

On the other hand, driven by mental illness to a large extent. 

As you know, originally, the doctor told me to do an insanity 

defense. 

I said no, I don't think he is insane. I think he needs 

to accept responsibility, which he has done. That's' a 

good thing. 

(4,-A 6: 16-9: 13) (emphasis supplied). 

On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed a Post Sentence Motion to Modify and 

Reconsider the Sentence, I denied Appellant's Motion on January 23, 2023. 

Appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the 

December 29, 2022, Judgment of Sentence. On February 2, 2023, I entered an 

Order directing Appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) and requiring the 

Commonwealth to file a response. Appellant filed his Statement of Errors on 

February 10, 2023, and the Commonwealth responded on February 21, 2023. 

DISCUSSION 

In his Statement of Errors, Appellant argues that the " basis for the appeal 

is an abuse of discretion, even though [the sentence imposed] was below the 

guidelines." ( 1925(b) Statement of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, Feb. 10, 

2023, at ,i 3). Appellant claims that I erred because I " did not factor in, at the 

7 

It's a serious case. You can't go around shooting at police 

officers. Lucky no one was injured, killed. Lucky he wasn't 

killed in this particular matter. Not acceptable, 

On the other hand, driven by mental illness to a large extent. 

As you know, originally, the doctor told me to do an insanity 

defense. 

I said no, I don't think he is insane. I think he needs 

to accept responsibility, which he has done. That's' a 

good thing. 

(g,at 6: 16-9: 13) (emphasis supplied). 

On January 6, 2023, Appellant filed a Post Sentence Motion to Modify and 

Reconsider the Sentence, I denied Appellant's Motion on January 23, 2023. 

Appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court from the 

December 29, 2022, Judgment of Sentence. On February 2, 2023, I entered an 

Order directing Appellant to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) and requiring the 

Commonwealth to file a response. Appellant filed his Statement of Errors on 

February 10, 2023, and the Commonwealth responded on February 21, 2023. 

DISCUSSION 

In his Statement of Errors, Appellant argues that the "basis for the appeal 

s an abuse of discretion, even though [the sentence imposed] was below the 

guidelines." (1925(b) Statement of the Defendant, Shawn Stryker, Feb. 10, 

2023, at i 3). Appellant claims that I erred because I "did not factor in, at the 

7 
time of sentencing, the severe mental illness that [he] had suffered from at the 

time of his misconduct." 9L 

"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." Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 

937 (Pa. Super. 2013). Pn " abuse of discretion is not shown merely by 

an error in Judgment." gL. Instead, "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 '11INill, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision." 9L 

In discussing the rationale behind granting such deference to the 

sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: 

[T]he sentencing court is in the best position to 

determine the proper penalty for a particular offense 

based upon an evaluation of the individual 

circumstances before it . . . . Simply stated, the 

sentencing court sentences flesh- and- blood defendants 

and the nuances of sentencing decisions are difficult to 

gauge from the cold transcript used upon appellate 

review. Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys an 

institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing to 

its decisions an expertise, experience, and judgment 

that should not be lightly disturbed. Even with the 

advent of the sentencing guidelines, the power of 

sentencing °1s a function to be performed by the 

sentencing court. 

Commonwealth v. Walls , 926 A.2d 957, 961-62 (Pa. 2007). 

8 

time of sentencing, the severe mental illness that [he] had suffered from at the 

time of his misconduct." gt 

"Sentencing is a matter vested i the sound discretion of the 

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

manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth y, Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 

937 (Pa. Super. 2013). An "abuse of discretion is not shown merely by 

an error in Judgment." gL. Instead, "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 11will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision." gL 

In discussing the rationale behind granting such deference to the 

sentencing court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: 

[Tlhe sentencing court is in the best position to 

determine the proper penalty for a particular offense 

based upon an evaluation of the individual 

circumstances before it . ., Simply stated, the 

sentencing court sentences flesh-and-blood defendants 

and the nuances of sentencing decisions are difficult to 

gauge from the cold transcript used upon appellate 

review. Moreover, the sentencing court enjoys an 

institutional advantage to appellate review, bringing to 

its decisions an expertise, experience, and judgment 

that should not be lightly disturbed. Even with the 

advent of the sentencing guidelines, the power of 

sentencing ls a function to be performed by the 

sentencing court. 

Commonwealth , Wal, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62 (Pa. 2007). 

8 
The sentencing court also has the discretion to impose its sentences 

concurrent or consecutive bo other sentences being imposed at the same 

time. C=monwealth v. Johnson - Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 28 ( Pa. Super. 

2017). When the court relies on the defendant's prior criminal history 

and finds that the defendant ISa high risk to re- offend and a danger to 

the public, consecutive sentences are not clearly unreasonable. See 

.Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911,911 (Pa. 2006). 

Finally, the " Supreme Court has determined that where the trial 

court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court 

is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that 

were the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be 

disturbed." Commonwtlalth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 

Ct 2009) (citing f.D mmonwealth v. Dev erg, 546 A.2d 12 ( Pa. 1988)). 

Instantly, as noted above, Appellant concedes that the sentencing 

guidelines for Counts 1 and 2 provide a standard sentencing range of 48 

to 60 months incarceration. Appellant also acknowledges that on both 

Counts 1 and 2, I imposed a minimum sentence of 36 months- which is 

in the mitigated range. Although I also imposed guideline- range 

sentences on Counts 3 through 8, I made all periods of incarceration 

concurrent to those imposed on Counts 1 and 2. Further, because 

Appellant fired shots at two Officers, Appellant undoubtedly poses a grave 

9 

The sentencing court also has the discretion to impose its sentences 

concurrent or consecutive to other sentences being imposed at the same 

time. Commonwealth y, Johnson -Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 28 (Pa. Super. 

2017). When the court relies on the defendant's prior criminal history 

and finds that the defendant ISa high risk to re-offend and a danger to 

the public, consecutive sentences are not clearly unreasonable. See 

Commonwealth v, Klueber, 904 A.2d 911,911 (Pa. 2006). 

Finally, the "Supreme Court has determined that where the trial 

court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court 

s aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that 

were the court has been s informed, its discretion should not be 

disturbed." Commonwtlalth v Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 

0 2009) (citing Co moonwealth , Dyers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988)). 

Instantly, as noted above, Appellant concedes that the sentencing 

guidelines for Counts 1 and 2 provide a standard sentencing range of 48 

to 60 months incarceration. Appellant also acknowledges that on both 

Counts 1 and 2, I imposed a minimum sentence of 36 months-which is 

n the mitigated range. Although I also imposed guideline-range 

sentences on Counts 3 through 8, I made all periods of incarceration 

concurrent to those imposed on Counts 1 and 2 Further, because 

Appellant fired shots at two Officers, Appellant undoubtedly poses a grave 

9 
risk to the public and my decision to impose consecutive sentences on 

Counts I and 2 is not clearly unreasonable. 

Appellant claims that I did not factor n the severe mental illness 

that he allegedly suffered from at the time of his misconduct. However, 

the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing demonstrates that I carefully 

considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs and the psychological and 

psychiatric evaluations provided to me. In addition tD being intimately 

familiar with the facts of the case and with Appellant's mental health from 

my 'involvement with the matter prior to Appellant's decision to enter a 

guilty plea, I relied on all of the information presented to me in the PSI 

when fashioning Appellant's sentence. 

Interestingly, although Appellant claims on appeal that he was 

clearly suffering from a severe psychosis during the pertinent times, his 

own trial counsel admitted at sentencing that he chose not to pursue 

an insanity defense because counsel did not think that Appellant was 

"insane." Instead, trial counsel emphasized that Appellant needed to 

"accept responsibility" for his actions. 

For these reasons, Appellant simply has no basis to claim that I 

manifestly abused the discretion afforded to me to fashion a sentence 

that I deemed appropriate. I correctly applied the sentencing guidelines 

and relied on the PSI In imposing a mitigated- range sentence that 

acknowledged the grave danger that Appellant created by firing at Police 

10 

risk to the public and my decision to impose consecutive sentences on 

Counts 1and 2 is not clearly unreasonable. 

Appellant claims that I did not factor in the severe mental illness 

that he allegedly suffered from at the time of his misconduct. However, 

the transcript of the Sentencing Hearing demonstrates that I carefully 

considered Appellant's rehabilitative needs and the psychological and 

psychiatric evaluations provided to me. in addition to being intimately 

familiar with the facts of the case and with Appellant's mental health from 

my involvement with the matter prior to Appellant's decision to enter a 

guilty plea, I relied on all of the information presented to me in the PSI 

when fashioning Appellant's sentence. 

Interestingly, although Appellant daims on appeal that he was 

clearly suffering from a severe psychosis during the pertinent times, his 

own trial counsel admitted at sentencing that he chose not to pursue 

an insanity defense because counsel did not think that Appellant was 

"insane." Instead, trial counsel emphasized that Appellant needed to 

"accept responsibility" for his actions. 

For these reasons, Appellant simply has no basis to claim that I 

manifestly abused the discretion afforded to me to fashion a sentence 

that I deemed appropriate. I correctly applied the sentencing guidelines 

and relied on the psI in imposing a mitigated-range sentence that 

acknowledged the grave danger that Appellant created by firing at Police 

10 
Officers who risked their lives to try to help him and who showed mercy 

in sparing his life. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, each of the errors that Appellant complains of 

are without merit and the appeal should be denied. Accordingly, I enter 

the following: 

11 

Officers who risked their lives to try to help him and who showed mercy 

n sparing his life. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, each of the errors that Appellant complains of 

are without merit and the appeal should be denied. Accordingly, I enter 

the following: 

11 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLUS OP LANCASTIIR COUNTY, PLNNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

V. 

SHAWN Q STRYKER 

0430-2021 

ORD!R 

AND NOW, this 7,1 1' day of March, 2023, the Court hereby submits 

this Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appetliite 

Procedure. 

ATTEST: 

Copies to: Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Public Defender's Office 

Andrew Gonzalez, Esquire, District Attorney's Office 

IN THI! COURT OF COMMON PLUS OP LANCASTIIR COUNTY, PIINNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SHAWN O STRYKER 

• • 

• • 

: 

0430-2021 

ORD!R 

AND NOW, this _ZL day of March, 2023, the Court hereby submits 

this Opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvanla Rules of Appetliite 

Procedure. 

ATTEST: 

Coples to: Diana C. Kelleher, Esquire, Public Defender's Office 

Andrew Gonzalez, Esquire, District Attorney's Office