J-S18029-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROSS BONADDIO

Appellant No. 885 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 24, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000807-2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 10, 2016

Ross Bonaddio appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County following his plea of guilty 

but mentally ill1to Kidnapping with the Intent to Inflict Bodily Injury or to 

Terrorize.2 The Honorable Michael J. Barrasse sentenced Bonaddio to forty-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The court held a hearing on September 26, 2014, to determine if Bonaddio 

was mentally ill at the time he committed the offense. Dr. Richard E. 

Fischbein, an expert in forensic psychiatry, testified that, within a reasonable 

degree of medical certainty, Bonaddio suffered from paranoid schizophrenia 

or schizoaffective disorder at the time of the crime and that this substantially 

affected his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to 

conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. 

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2901(a)(3).
J-S18029-16

- 2 -

two to ninety months, followed by ten years of special probation.3 Following 

our careful review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant case 

law, we affirm based on Judge Barrasse’s opinion. 

The trial court has fully summarized the procedural and factual history 

of this case, which we adopt and need not restate here since we write for the 

parties. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/22/15, at 2-3. On appeal, Bonaddio 

challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, and points to several 

violations of the Sentencing Code, as follows: 

Should the forty-two (42) to ninety (90) month sentence 

imposed after Mr. Bonaddio’s plea of “Guilty But Mentally Ill” be

set aside, and the case remanded for re-sentencing because, 

although the sentence was within [the] standard guideline 

range, application of the guidelines was clearly unreasonable (42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2)) and thus the sentence constitutes a 

manifest abuse of discretion and violates basic sentencing norms 

in that, given the extraordinarily mitigating circumstances arising 

from Mr. Bonaddio’s mental illness, the sentence is unreasonably 

harsh and disproportionate to Mr. Bonaddio’s reduced culpability, 

and further, the sentence violates specific provisions of the 

sentencing code in that the sentence evinces[:] a) a failure to 

consider Mr. Bonaddio’s rehabilitative needs as mandated by 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b), b) a failure to consider that Mr. Bonaddio 

“did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten 

serious harm” (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(2)), c) a failure to consider 

“substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify” his conduct 

(42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(4)), d) a failure to consider the expert’s 

opinion that Mr. Bonaddio would be “particularly likely to 

____________________________________________

3 A person who is found guilty but mentally ill or who pleads guilty but 

mentally ill “may have any sentence imposed on him which may lawfully be 

imposed on any defendant convicted of the same offense.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9727. 
J-S18029-16

- 3 -

respond affirmatively to probationary treatment” (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9722(10)), and e) the reasons for sentence were not adequately 

disclosed in open court at the time of sentencing (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9721(b)). 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing 

court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. 

Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007). An appellate 

court must accord the sentencing court’s decision great weight because the 

court is in the best position to consider the defendant’s character, display of 

remorse, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the 

crime. Id. Additionally, challenges to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing are not reviewable as of right. Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 

A.2d 910, 912 (Pa. Super. 2000). Rather, an appellant challenging the 

discretionary aspects of his or her sentence must satisfy the following fourpart test:

[W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) 

whether 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 

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) (some 

citations omitted). An appellant raises a substantial question when he 

demonstrates that the sentencing court’s actions were inconsistent with the 
J-S18029-16

- 4 -

Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the 

sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). 

Bonaddio has satisfied these procedural requirements for preserving 

his sentencing challenge, and the Commonwealth concedes that Bonaddio’s 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) Statement has raised a substantial question. See 

Commonwealth v. Diaz, 867 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

The trial court applied the proper governing principles and reviewed 

the statutory provisions governing guilty-but-mentally-ill pleas. Additionally, 

the court detailed the information that it considered before imposing the 

sentence, including the presentence investigation and psychiatric 

evaluations. Based upon our review, we agree with Judge Barrasse’s 

assessment and analysis of Bonaddio’s substantive claims, see Trial Court 

Opinion, at 4-12, and we conclude that Judge Barrasse did not abuse his 

discretion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge 

Barrasse’s opinion. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion in 

the event of further proceedings. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/10/2016
~· . . . 

' . 

1 

In light of the extraordinarily mitigating circumstances arising from the fact that 

Mr. Bonaddio suffers from "paranoid schizophrenia versus schizoaffeetive 

disorder", and was found "Guilty But Mentally Ill" of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 290l(a)(3) _ after a hearing in which an expert offered an uncontradicted opinion that there is a 

strong correlation between Mr. Bonaddio's psychiatric illness and his crime, that 

Mr. Bonaddio believed he was helping the victim by assaulting her, that Mr. 

· Bonadd.io does not have an anti-social personality disorder, that he does not pose 

. a risk of violence when taking his medications, and that he is a good candidate for 

treatment under supervised release, the sentence of forty-two (42) to-ninety (90) 

months, although within the standard guideline range, constitutes a manifest abuse 

of discretion and violates basic sentencing no11I1S in that it is unreasonably harsh, 

failed to give appropriate weight to the expert' s recommendations, and is 

disproportionate to Mr. Bonaddio's reduced culpability, and the sentence violates 

specific provisions of the sentencing code in the sentence evinces a) a failure to 

consider Mr. Bonaddio's rehabilitative needs -as mandated by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9721(b ), b) a failure to· consider that Mr. Bonaddio "did not contemplate that bis 

conduct would cause or threaten serious harm" (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9722(2)). c) a 

failure to consider "substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify>' his conduct 

(42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(14) and d) the expert's opinion that Mr. Bonaddio would be 

"particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment" (Pa. 

C.S.A. § 9722~10), and to whatever extent the court found aggravating 

Appellant's complaints on appeal are as follows, verbatim: 

(herein after "Appellant") appeals this Court's March 24, 2015 Judgment of Sentence, The 

Procedure and pursuant to the request of the Superior Court Appellant Ross Anthony Bonaddio 

This opinion is filed pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

BARRASSE, J. 

_(;') 

OPINiON 

" ROSS ANTHONY BONADDIO 

V. 14 CR 807 

c....., 

.s: ~·- ~ ;=:, ~ 

rn r-- 

o rl 

<::'> ~'-' 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKA w Al~ACOUNTY 

No. 5769 P. 2 · 'Oct. 22'. 2015 J_:5lAM Circulated 02/26/2016 11:48 AM
2 

Appellant was charged with Kidnapping with the Intent To inflict bodily injury on or to 

terrorize in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §290l(a)(3), Unlawful Restraint/ Involuntary Servitude in 

violation ~f 18 Pa.C.S.A.2902(a)(2), two (2) counts of Terroristic Threats with Intent to 

Terrorize Another in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2706(a)(l), Simple Assault in violation of 18 

going to shoot them in the bead the next time they enter. 

the victim. Appellant also told the victim that aliens entered the bodies of his sons and be was 

. . 

hallucinations and delusions in which lie thought he bad to beat the aliens or evil spirits out of 

paranoid schizophrenic who went off his medication. Appellant was suffering from 

had locked her in the house so that she could not escape. She attempted to escape, but Appellant 

chased· her and dragged her back into the house. It was later determined that Appellant is a 

the floor in the rear of the house. She stated that Appellant was beating her for: three days and he 

and eventually restrained him. Appellant's girlfriend was found naked, bloody, and bruised on 

began to yell at officers. He was told to get on the ground and refused. O~cers tased Appellant, 

into the house after Appellant refused to let them enter. Appellant took a fighting stance and 

for help at the address where the Appellant and victim were living. Officers forced themselves 

On January 27, 2014. Scranton police officers responded to a report of a woman yelling 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDIDμL IDSTORY 

I 

be affirmed, 

t 

. 

and the character of the Defendant, this Court's Judgment of Sentence on March 24, 2014 should 

,. ... 

Based upon the following reasons, including review of the record, the facts of the case, 

.'\ . 

' 

[Emphasis in original.] 

circumstances, they were not adequately explained in the court' s "reasons for 

sentence" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9721(b). 
3 

(citations omitted)). 

a petition for allowance ofappeal. Comnionwealth v. Rossetti, 863 .A.2d 1185, 1193-1194 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (citing Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa.Sup~r.2001) 

Initially, we not~ that no automatic right of appeal exists for a challenge to the 

discretionary aspects of sentencing. Rather, this type of appeal is more appropriately considered 

D)SCUSSION 

~ 

Reconsideration of Sentence on April 2, 2015., which was denied after a hearing on April 27, 

2015. Appellant timely appealed. 

months imprisonment follo~ed by ten (10) years special probation. Appellant filed a Motion for 

investigation and psychiatric evaluations, the Court sentenced Appellant to 42 to ninety (90) 

sixty (60) day diagnostic evaluation. On Max-ch 24, 2015, after reviewing the presentence 

On December 22, 2014, this Court ordered Appellant be conunitted to DOC custody for a 

charges were withdrawn, 

terrorize in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2901(a)(3) on September 26, 2014. The remaining 

. 

On August 25, 2015, Appellant entered a Guilty Plea the Kidnapping charge. This Court 

granted Appellant's petition. to Appoint and Fund an Expert to Provide an Opinion as to Guilty 

f . . 

I but Mentally Ill on· September 11, 2014. After withdrawing bis guilty plea, Appellant entered a 

plea of Guilty but Mentally Ill to Kidnapping with the Intent To inflict bodily injury on or to 

:' Subjecting Another to Physical Contact in violation of 18 Pa. C.S . .A.· § 2709(a)(1). 

fa.CS.A: 2701(a)(l), False Jmprisomnent iri violation of18 Pit. C.S.A. 2903(a),_Resisting 

Arrest or Other La~ Enforcement in violation of 18 P_a.C.S . .A. §5104, and Harassment+ 

IVV, )/U7 r. t 
4 

(quotations omitted). "An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate 

was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality. prejudice, bias or ill-will." Id. 

· court 'Will not have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised 

(Pa. 2007). "[Ajn abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of judgment ... : [A] sentencing 

appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Walli., 926 A.2d ·957, 961 

is a matter vested within the sound discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed on 

appropriate. and should be affirmed. First, it is well-established law that the sentencing function 

Even assuming Appellant's sentence is an appealable issue, we believe the sentence was 

imposed upon Appellant was within the guidelines. 

We believe that no substantial question exists to Appellant's sentence, as the sentence 

sentence does not raise a substantial question where the sentence is within the statutory 

v. Brown, 741 A.. 2d 726, 135 (Pa. Sup et. 1999) ( en bane), "[A) claim of excessiveness of 

· (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process." Common.wealth 

will grant an appeal 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 

case basis. Commonwealth -v-. Rossetti, 863 A. 2d 1185, 1192 (Pa. Super. 2004). "[The court] 

A court evaluates whether a particular issue raises a substantial question on a case-byMastromarino, 2 A. 3d 581, 588 (Pa. Su.pe:i•. 2010), cert. denied, 14 A.3d 581. 

the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. Commo~wealth v. 

whether an appellant (i) filed a timely notice of appeal, (ii) properly preserved the issue to be 

heard on appeal, (iii) filed a· brief free of fatal defects, and (iv) raised a substantial question that 

Before reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, a court must ascertain 

111.J, :JI V7 . r , .1 

,· 

Oct. 22. 2015 9: 52AM 
5 

v. Buny, 765 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super .. 2000). 

take the position that if a court is in possession of the facts, it~ fail to apply them to the case 

at hand." Id. See Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A. 2149 (Pa. Super. 2004); Commonwealth 

. . 

A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988). The Devers court further articulated that "it would be foolish, indeed. to 

sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself." Com:mohwealth v. Deve~, 54.6 

character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A pre~ 

that the sentencing court "was aware of relevant information. concerning the defendant's 

. . 

Further, if a Pre-Sentence Investigative Report exists, Pennsylvania Courts shall presume 

Gallagher, 442 ~2d 820 (Pa. Super. 1982), 

cooperation with law enforcement agents. Commonwealth v. J3eg_Iey, 780 A. 2d 605, 644 (Pa. 

2001)~ Commonwealth Y, Constantine, 478 A.2d 39 (Pa. Super, 1984); Co:mmonwealth v. 

by considering his demeanor, apparent remorse, manifestation of social conscience, and 

42 Pa.C.S. §9721(b ). A sentencing court may determine a defendant's potential for rehabilitation 

on the life. of the victims and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant." 

"consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it related to the impact 

Walls, 926 A.2d at 961-62 ( citations omitted). Furthermore, a sentence of confinement must be 

. 

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 is a function to be performed by the sentencing court. Thus, rather than cabin 

the exercise of a sentencing court's discretion, the guidelines merely inform the 

sentencing decision. 

' 

t 

I 

standard is as follows: 

1046 (Pa. 2003).·The rationale offered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for this deferential 

· court might have reached a different conclusion. ... ., Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038, 
1 The Presentence Investigation Report calculated Appellant's Prior Record Score at 2. 

on the victim, and the need to deter Appellant ·and others from committing this type of offense, 

Additionally, we considered the particular circumstances of the offenses committed, the impact 

In imposing Appellant's sentence, we first took into consideration the sentencing guidelines. As 

stated above, Appellant was sentenced within the standard guidelines for the offense committed. 

We also took into account Appellant's prior criminal history.' N.T. March 24> 2015, p. 11. 

considered tlie particular circumstances of the offense, as well as the character of the Appellant. 

sentence investigative report, which was reviewed in its entirety. Upon review, this Court 

In the present case, prior to imposing sentence, this Court had the benefit of a pre·. 

I~ in part, to mental illness"). 

( stating that "[tlhere is no mandatory reduction in sentence because a defendant has acted due, at 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9727(n)); see also Commonwealth v. Diaz, 867 A.2d 1285, 1287 (Pn.Super.2005) 

on any defendant convicted of the same offense." Id. at 78-79, 855 A.2d flt 701 (quoting 42 

guilty but mentally ill "may have any sentence imposed on him which may lawfully be imposed 

78, 855 A.2d 682, 701 (2004). Our legislature has specifically dictated that a defendant found' 

mentally ill is entitled to no reduction in sentence." Commonwealth v. Santiago, 579 Pa, 46, 

Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reiterated that "a defendant found to be guilty but 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9727. 

(a) Imposition of sentence.-A defendant found guilty but mentally ill or, whose plea of 

guilty but mentally ill is accepted under the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 314 (relatfug to 

guilty but mentally ill) may have any sentence imposed on him which may lawfully be 

imposed on any defendant convicted of the same offense. · { 

I 

who plead guilty but mentally ill provides in relevant part as follows: :, 

entitle Appellant to any reduction in sentence. The statutepertaining to disposition of persons 

Moreover, the fact that Appellant entered a plea of Guilty But Mentally Ill does not 
7 

A. Whether the Court Abused Its Discretion In Failing to Consider Mr. Appellant's 

Rehabilitative Needs As Mandated Bv 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721{b)? 

----- ...... 

[e)J and to whatever extent the court found aggravating circumstances, they were 

not adequately explained in the court's "reasons for sentence" in: violation of 42 

Pa. C.S.A. 9721(b). 

d) the expert's opinion that Mr. Bonaddio would be "particularly likely to respond 

affirmatively to probationary treatment" (Pa. C.S.A § 9722(10), 

c) a failure to consider "substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify" his· 

conduct (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9722(14) and · 

b) a failure to consider that Mr. Bonaddio "did not contemplate that his conduct 

would cause or threaten serious harm" (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9722(2)), 

a) a failure to consider Mr. Bonaddio's rehabilitative needs as mandated by 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 972l(b), 

sentence are as follows: 

Appellant'~ specific complaints on appeal regarding the discretionary aspects of his 

incarceration followed by ten (10) years probation. Id. at 13. 

then sentenced Appellant in the standard range to forty-two (42) to ninety (90) months 

medications the Appellant stated 1'1 ran out of them. I never got them refilled .... "Id. This Court 

fact that he chose to stop taking the medication, despite his diagnosis. Appellant stated: 'Tm 

sorry for what I did. It wasn't my fault. I was not taking my medications. I thought I was helping 

the people. I was incompetent at the time." Id. When asked why he wasn't taking his 

the violent nature of crime, the Court shouldn't be more concerned about the safety and welfare ~ . 

f~~· 

of the public, the Appellant placed blame on the fact the lack of medication, but brushed over the 

Appellant's testimony in this case. Id. at U. Even at Sentencing when asked why.considering 

' 

.'\ mitigating factors, the presentence investigation report, the psychiatric evaluation report, and 

and the protection of the community at large. This Court considered all the aggravating and · 

No. 5769 P. 8 Oc.!. 22. 2015 9:53AM 
well in a state correctional facility with a strong psychiatric backup. N.T. Septe~ber 26, 2014, . · 

Appellant did not need to be committed to facility like Norristown or Warren State, but would do 

. . 

4-5. Additionally, the Court considered the potential harm to public that Appellant could cause. 

- Id. at 7. Fmthennore> the Court took into consideration the fact that the expert opined that · . . 

also considered the fact that Appellant did not really accept responsibility for his behavior. Id. a 

failures to address his mental illness and follow through with treatment Id. at 4, 8. The Court 

mental illness. The victim was found naked, bloody, and bruised from being repeatedly shoved, 

punched, and kicked. The Court also considered Appellant's prior criminal history, his prior 

a violent incident in which Appellant imprisoned and beat his girlfriend while suffering from 

hallucinations due to thefact that Appe1lant failed to take bis prescribed medication for his 

evaluation report, and Appellant's testimony in this case. N.T. March 24, 2015, p.12. This was 

aggravating and mitigating factors, the presentence investigation report, the psychiatric 

offense as it relates to the impact on the victim and the community. This Court considered all the 

needs of the Appellant, as well as the safety and protection of the public and the gravity of the 

As previously stated, in imposing sentence, this Court did consider th~ rehabilitative 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9121(b). 

(b) General standards=-In selecting from the alternatives set forth in subsection (a), the 

court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for 

confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense 

as it relates to the impact 011 the life of the victim and on the community, and the 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant. . · 

supervision a sentencing court may impose: 

The Sentencing Code states the following regarding the types of confinetilent and" , 

norms is without merit 

Appellant' s assertion that the Court abused its discretion or violated basic sentencing 

8 

., 

Vet. n. 201'; 9:53AM No. 5769 P. 9 
, 

9 

considered all facts in the record> including the presentence investigation report and the 

nature of the case and goals of sentencing are also accorded weight. Inthis case, the Court found 

.that the factors in favor of incarceration outweighed those infavor of probation. The Court 

9722 are to be given weight in favor of probation, but do not mandate probation. ~entencing 

discretion remains with the court. Moreover, the other facts and circumstances surrounding the 

states that the grounds listed therein are to be given weight in favor of probation, but are not 

· controlling.upon the discretion of the court. 42 Pa. C.S.A, § 9722. The factors under Section 

Appellant's claims are again. without merit. In Section 97221 the legislature specifically 

resulting in a manifest abuse of discretion and violated basic sentencing norms. 

9722(10). Appellant claims that violating these specific provisions of the Sentencing Code 

9722(2), failed to consider "substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify'' Appellant's conduct 

under Pa. C:~.A. § 9722(4), and failed to consider the expert's opinion that Appellant would be 

"particularly likely Jo respond affirmatively to probationary treatment" under Pa. C.S.A. § 

contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm" under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

failed to consider that factors to be given weight in favor of probation under 42 Pa.C.S.A .. § 

9722. Specifically, Appellant contends that the Court failed to consider that Appellant "did not 

Appellant's second, third, and fourth matters complained on appeal assert that the Court . 

B. - D. Whether the Court Abused Its Dbcretion or Otherwise Violated Specifie Provisions 

of the Sentencing Code by Failing to Give Adequate Weight to Factors in Favor of 

Probation? 

purposes of sentencing. 

... 

sentence of imprisonment within the guidelines was the most appropriate and best served the 

p. 10. This Court determined in its discretion that based on the Appellant's character, 

. background, psychological report, expert testimony, and the nature of the offense itself, a 

, 

t" 

I 

.'\ 
10 

stated: "a pre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself," !!h In addition to the 

investigation report and psychological examination prior to Sentencing. As the Court in Devers 

As previously stated above, the Court in this matter reviewed both the presentence 

Devel's, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1.988). 

Apre-sentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself. In order to dispel any 

lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging in an effort of legal purification, we state 

clearly that sentencers are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or 

systematic definitions of their punishment procedure. Having been fully informed by the 

pre-sentence report, the sentencing court's discretion should not b? disturbed. 

Further, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained in ColilkJ1onwealth v. Devers, 

42 Pa. C.S.A. § 972l(b). 

In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony or misdemeanor, 

modifies a sentence, resentences an offender following revocation of probation, county 

intermediate punishment or State intermediate punishment or resentences following 

remand, the court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose tn open court at the 'time 

of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence imposed. 

The relevant portion of Section 9721 (b) provides that: 

sentence" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9?21 (b ). 

found aggravating circumstances, they were not adequately explained in the court's "reasons for 

Appellant's final matter complained of on appeal asserts that to whatever extent the court 

E. Whether the Cou1-t Abused Its Discretion In Failing to A~nately Etplain Any 

Aggr.a:vating Circumstances in the Court's "Reasons For Sentence;' ln Violation of 42 Pa. 

C.S.A. §972l(b)? . 

sentence imposed was appropriate. 

sentencing purposes of rehabilitation, deterrence, and iucapa~itation. As explained in above, the 

Court discussed specific factors regarding the Appellant and determined that, in its-.jμdgment, the 

psychological exam report, applied such facts to the Sentencing Code, and balanced the 

No. 5769 P. 11 

,, 

r 
responsibility, rather such a determination depends upon the facts of the case. The facts of this 

case indicate that the Appellant admitted to locking the doors of the house and attempting to 

force the evil spirits out of the victim. The Appellant admitted thal he was off bis medication at 

the time of the· offense because he failed to refill his prescription and thought he no longer 

same offense. In addition, mental illness alone cannot absolve a defendant from criminal 

be sentenced to any sentence that may lawfully be imposed upon a defendant convicted of the 

stated, under Pennsylvania law, a defendant whose plea of guilty but mentally ill is accepted may 

illness with what the law and society require, especially the safety of others. As previously 

'AB such, this Court had to balance what the Appellant requires in light of his mental 

steroids since 2007. 

and Ambien, which he failed to take at the time of the offense. Appellant has also been 

hospitalized in the past for mental health treatment in 2005 and 2011. Appellant has been using 

dating back to 2005. The Appellant was prescribed psychiatric medications Seroquel, Ativan, 

time of the Appellant's guilty plea, as well as a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation from SCI · 

Camp Hall, the Appellant has a history of Paranoid Schizophrenia and Delusional Disorder 

medical records, a report from Dr. Richard Fischein that has been received .into evidence at the 

this criminal offense and a factor in the Appellant's prior criminal history. According to past 

This Court observed that the Appellant's serious mental condition has been the focus of 

the potential for future harm to the public. Id. at 11. 

8. The Court also considered the violent nature of this crime, the impact on the victim> as well as 

. . ~ 

the 'Appellant's prior criminal history and failures to follow through, N.T. March 24, 2015, p. 4, 

. . 

presentence report and psychological exam reports, the Court made on the record references to 

-: 

,,· 

I 

\ 

•.· 
12 

' 

l 

! f. 

j: 

.J..I; 

. ! / i I< 

_ ------- 

CC: Notice of the entry of the foregoing Memorandum has been provided to each party pursuant 

to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 114 by mailing time-stamped copies to the 

following individuals: 

Judgment of Sentence of this Court should be affirmed. 

and given the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, this Court's March 24, 2015 

Accordingly, the sentence imposed by this' Court was appropriate under the guidelines 

CONCLUSION 

factors aod no abuse of discretion occurred. 

observations statements during sentencing, this Court did adequately describe the aggravating 

Therefore, based on the presentence report, psychological exam reports, and the Court's 

the standard range of forty-two (42) to ninety (90) months imprisonment. 

health service to aid the Appellant in his rehabilitation. Thus, this Court sentenced Appellant in 

', 

therapy and treatment. Incarceration in a state correctional facility will provide a level of mental 

unmedicated warrants intensive monitoring through incarceration with ongoing psychological 

_ Appellant's mental illness coupled with the violent and aggressive behavior he exhibited when 

treatment for several years and stated that he was sorry for committing the crime. However, the 

. y' Accordingly, the Court recognized that the Appellant bas received mental health 

the Appellant is stabilized in the structured environment of the prison. 

needed it. The Appellant bas shown that he cannot self-remediate his mental impairments, rather 

No. 5769 P. 13 

,- 

Ver. LL. LU I? Y: '>'>AM