J-S18027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JABRIEL M. BROWN, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2324 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 13, 2019

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0004458-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2023

Appellant, Jabriel M. Brown, appeals from the August 13, 2019 judgment 

of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

following his guilty plea to twenty-three offenses stemming from a home 

break-in and assault.

1 Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his

sentence. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant pled guilty to two counts each of Aggravated Assault, Robbery, 

Burglary, Conspiracy, Criminal Trespass, Theft-by Unlawful Taking, Receiving 

Stolen Property, Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and 

one count each of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Firearms 

Not to be Carried Without a License, Carrying Firearms in Public in 

Philadelphia, Possession of Instrument of a Crime, and Criminal Mischief. See

18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a), 3701(a)(1)(ii), 3502(a)(1)(i), 903, 3503(a)(1)(ii), 

3921(a), 3925(a), 2701(a), 2705, 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a), and 

3304(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S18027-23

- 2 -

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. At 

approximately 7:30 AM on May 3, 2017, Steven Wallace and Nasir Hall 

(collectively, Victims) were sleeping in Wallace’s bedroom when Appellant and 

Jordan Hudson (“Codefendant”) broke into the house and kicked in the 

bedroom door. Appellant pointed a gun at Victims and struck Wallace in the 

face with the gun. One of the assailants also kicked Hall in the face. Although 

the assailants wore masks, Wallace identified them from the neighborhood.

The assailants proceeded to take approximately $900, an iPhone, and a 

designer belt from Victims. 

Ultimately, Appellant pled guilty to the listed offenses. On August 13, 

2019, after the court reviewed Appellant’s mental health and presentence 

investigation reports and considered the sentencing guidelines, it sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of 5-12 years of incarceration. Appellant filed 

a Motion for Reconsideration/Reduction of Sentence on August 20, 2019, 

which the sentencing court denied by operation of law on January 7, 2020. 

Although Appellant did not initially file a direct appeal, he subsequently 

sought reinstatement of his appellate rights by filing a Post-Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”) Petition.

2 The PCRA court granted reinstatement of his rights

nunc pro tunc on August 23, 2022. On September 9, 2022, Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal. Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

____________________________________________

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S18027-23

- 3 -

Before this Court, Appellant raises the following question: “Whether 

Appellant’s sentence was unduly harsh and excessive[?]” Appellant’s Br. at 4.

A.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not appealable as of 

right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

Instead, an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence 

must comply with the following requirements: (1) file a timely notice of 

appeal; (2) preserve the issue at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and 

modify sentence; (3) include in his appellate brief a separate section setting 

forth a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal

as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) raise a substantial question that the 

sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code. Id.

The record and his brief reflect that Appellant satisfied the first three 

requirements. Thus, we consider whether Appellant has presented a 

substantial question for review.

“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.” 

Commonwealth v. Summers, 245 A.3d 686, 692 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal 

denied, 276 A.3d 700 (Pa. 2022) (citation omitted). “While a bald claim of 

excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that 
J-S18027-23

- 4 -

the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does 

present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 

227 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Moreover, a claim that the 

“sentencing court disregarded [a defendant’s] rehabilitative potential and 

sentenced [him] to a manifestly excessive sentence” constitutes a substantial 

question. Commonwealth v. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126 (Pa. Super, 

2023).

In the instant case, Appellant maintains that his sentence was so 

“manifestly excessive as to constitute too severe a punishment.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 8. He further asserts that the sentencing court “did not provide adequate 

reasons for the sentence being so high nor did the court give due consideration 

to the defense arguments for a lesser sentence[,]” including his asserted 

rehabilitative potential. Id. Based upon the above precedent, we find that 

Appellant has asserted a substantial question. 

B.

“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. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 420 (Pa. Super. 

2019) (citation omitted). To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the 

defendant 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.” Id.
J-S18027-23

- 5 -

In sentencing a defendant, a trial court should consider the following 

factors: “the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to 

the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). When, as in the 

instant case, the sentencing court has the benefit of a pre-sentence 

investigation report, “we presume that [it] was aware of relevant information 

regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along 

with any mitigating factors.” Sexton, 222 A.3d at 422 (citation omitted). 

Moreover, we defer to the sentencing court’s assessment of the sentencing 

factors as it is “in the best position to measure factors such as the nature of 

the crime, the defendant’s character, and the defendant’s display of remorse, 

defiance, or indifference.” Summers, 245 A.3d at 696 (citation omitted). 

C.

While Appellant acknowledges that his sentence was within the 

guidelines, he claims that his sentence is “unduly harsh and unreasonable” 

and that the sentencing court failed to “give sufficient weight to the 

rehabilitation of Appellant.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. He emphasizes that he was 

19 at the time of the crime, was seeking treatment for Attention-DeficitHyperactivity Disorder, and had substantial family and community support. 

Id. at 11. Appellant claims that the sentencing court improperly considered 

that Appellant possessed a firearm during the incident and engaged in 

violence, attributes which Appellant contends are already incorporated into 
J-S18027-23

- 6 -

the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 13. Our review of the record, however, 

reveals that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion. 

At the sentencing hearing and in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court 

thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence imposed, balancing what it 

viewed as mitigating and aggravating factors.3 The court identified the 

following mitigating factors: “that Defendant accepted responsibility, that he 

was youthful at the time of the crime, that he had incredible family support, 

and that his prior conviction was over five years old, committed when he was 

a minor at the age of fourteen.” Tr. Ct. Op. at 6. The court, however,

recognized “that were aggravating factors present when considering the 

sentence, such as the premeditation required for the crime, the violence 

involved and the fact a firearm was posses[s]ed, that there was information 

of intimidation against the victim and the victim’s family, the fact that his 

previous conviction was a Felony I robbery, and that Defendant, while on bail 

for the case at bar, committed another robbery.” Id. Ultimately, the court 

declined to impose consecutive sentences, deviated from the guidelines by 

mitigating the minimum sentence by six months, but included “a longer tail[,]”

explaining that it wanted to “keep him on [the court’s] supervision when he 

does get out.” N.T., 8/13/2019, at 60. In light of the court’s careful and 

____________________________________________

3 Given his prior record score of 4 and the offense gravity score of 10, the 

standard guideline sentence was 48-60 months, plus or minus 12 months, 

which increased to 66-78 months, with the inclusion of the deadly weapon 

enhancement. See 204 Pa. Code §§ 303.16, 303.17(b). The court mitigated 

by 6 months the minimum sentence, imposing a sentence of 60-144 months.
J-S18027-23

- 7 -

reasonable assessment of the sentencing factors, we conclude that the court 

did not abuse its discretion in fashioning Appellant’s sentence.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2023