J - S18029 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA 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 ill 1 to Kidnapping with the Intent to Inflict Bodi ly 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 af

firm 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 ab use 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 n ot 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 co nvicted 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 four part 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. Evan s , 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 theJ - S18029 - 16

- 4 -

Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlyi ng 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 cour t 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 

## o f the extraordinarily mitig ating circumstan ce s ari s in g fro m the fac t th at 

### Mr. Bonaddio suffers from "paranoid schizophreni a 

### ver s us sc hizoaff ee ti ve di s order " , and 

### was found " Guilty But Mentall y Ill " of 1 8 P a. C . S .A. § 2 90 l (a ) (3) _ after a h e aring in w hi c h an e x pert off ere d an uncontradicte d opinion th at there is a str o ng c orrel ation between 

### Mr. B o n a ddi o ' s psychi atric illn es s and his c rime , that 

### Mr . Bon a dd i o believed h e was h el pin g the victim b y assaul tin g her, that 

### Mr. · Bonadd.io d o es not h ave an 

### anti-so c ial p ersonality di s ord er, th at he does not p ose

. a risk of violence when takin g his med ic ati o ns , and th at h e i s a g oo d candi date for 

### treatment under supervised release , the s entence of forty- two (42) to - nin e ty (9 0 ) months, although 

### within the standard guideline range, constitutes a manifes t ab use of dis c r e tion and v i olates basic sente ncing no11I1S in that it i s unre a s onably har s h , faile d to gi ve app r opriate weight to th e exp ert' s recomm e ndati ons, 

### and is dispro portionate to 

### Mr . B o n addio's re du c ed culpab ility, and the se n tence vi o late s specific provisi o ns of the s en t en c in g c od e in the sente n ce ev i nce s a) a fail ur e t o 

### consider Mr . 

### Bonaddi o ' s rehabilit ative n ee ds

- as man dated b y 4 2 P a. C . S. A. § 9721(b ), b) a failure to · consider that 

### Mr . Bonaddio "d i d 

### no t co n template that bi s conduct would 

### cause or threaten s eriou s harm" (42 Pa. C .S. A. § 9 72 2 (2 ) ). c) a failure to consider 

### " sub s tantial grounds tending to ex c use or ju s tify >' hi s 

### co ndu c t (42 P a . C.S.A. § 9 722(14) and d) the e xp ert' s opini o n that 

### Mr. Bo n addio would b e "p arti c ul arly like ly t o res po n d affirmativ e ly to prob ati onary treatmen t" (Pa. C. S. A . § 9 722~ 10), an d to whate v e r e xtent the co urt fo und a g gr avating 

### Appellant' s complaint s o n appe al are as follow s , v e rbatim : (h erein after " Appellant") appeal s 

### this Court's March 

### 24, 2 015 Judgment o f Sente nce, 

### The Pro c e dure and pur su ant to th e request of th e Superior Court App e llant Ro ss Anth o ny Bon a ddi o This opinion is filed pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Penns y l v ani a Rul es of Appe llate BARRASSE, 

### J . _ (;') OPINiON " ROSS ANTHONY BONADDIO 14 CR 80 7

V . c... .., 

## .s : ~ · - ~ ;=:, ~

rn r-- o r l <::'> ~' -' 

### C OM M ONWEAL T H OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKA 

# w Al~A C OUNTY 

### N o . 5769 P . 2 · ' O ct. 22'. 2 015 J_ : 5 lAM Circulated 02/26/2016 11:48 AM2

App e llant was c har g ed with Kidnap ping wi th th e Intent To inflict b o di ly in j u ry o n or to terroriz e in vio l ation of 18 

### Pa . C.S . A. §29 0 l(a)(3) , Unl awful Restraint/ 

### Involun t ary S erv itude in vi olation 

### ~ f 1 8 Pa .C .S.A . 29 0 2(a)(2) , tw o ( 2 ) c o un ts o f Terr o ri s tic Thre ats with Inten t to T err oriz e An o the r i n v i olation of 18 P a .C . S . A . 27 0 6(a)(l), Simp l e Ass aul t in vi ol ation o f 18 g oin g to s hoot th e m i n the b ea d th e n e xt tim e th e y enter . th e vi c tim . Appellan t al so to l d th e vi c tim that ali ens e ntered th e bodi es o f his 

### sons and b e w as . . h al lucinatio ns and d e lusions in 

### w hich lie thought h e bad to beat th e aliens or evil 

### spirits o ut o f paranoid sc hizophrenic wh o 

### went off 

### his me dication. Appellant was suffering from ha d locked h er in the house so that she cou ld not e s cape. S h e attempted t o e scape, but App e ll an t ch as ed · her and dr agged her b a ck in t o th e hous e . It was later determined th at Appellant i s a the floor in th e rear of the house . She stated th at Appe ll ant was 

### b e ating h er 

### for: thre e d a y s and h e an d eve n tually re s tr ained 

### him . Appe ll ant's girlfriend was found naked, bloody , and bru i s ed on began to y e ll at office r s. He w a s to l d to ge t on the ground and refused. O ~c ers tas ed App e llant, in t o the h o u s e after Appe ll an t refused to l et th em ente r. Appellant took a fighting 

### stanc e and for help at th e address wh e re the App e llant and victim were living . Officers forced themse l ves 

### On J anuary 27, 2014. Sc r ant o n police 

### officer s res pond e d to 

### a repo rt of 

### a woman 

### yelling F A C TU AL A ND PROCE D IDμL IDS TO R Y I be affirmed , t 

# . and th e charac ter of the Defendan t , this Court' s Judgment o f Sentenc e o n March 24, 201 4 s hould , . 

## .. . Bas e d upo n th e fo llo w in g reaso n s, in c l uding 

### review of the 

### re cord, the facts of the c as e , .'\ . ' [Emp hasis in original .] circumstances, th e y were no t a d equate l y e x p l ained in the 

### court ' s " re asons for 

### senten c e" in vi o l ati o n o f 4 2 

### Pa. C . S.A. 972 1 (b) .3

(ci t ations o mi tt ed)). a p e titi o n fo r all owan c e o fappe al . Comni on weal th v . Rossetti, 863 .A.2 d 11 85, 1193 -11 9 4 (Pa . 

### Sup er . 2 004 ) (c i ting Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A . 2 d 11 83, 1185 (Pa . S u p~r . 2001) Initiall y, w e n o t ~ that n o automati c ri g ht of appe al e xists fo r a chall e n ge to the dis c re tion ary a s pe c ts o f se ntenc ing . Rath er, this typ e o f appeal i s mo re ap propriate l y co ns id e re d D)SCUSSION ~ Re c on si d erati o n of Sentenc e on April 2, 2015., which w as denied after a hearin g on April 2 7 , 2015 . Appell an t timel y appealed . months imp risonment follo~ e d by ten ( 1 0) y ear s special prob atio n . App e llant fil e d a Motion fo r inv e sti g ation and psychiatric e valuations, the Co u rt s enten ce d Appe ll ant to 4 2 to nin e ty ( 90) sixty (60) d ay diagnostic e valuation. On Max-ch 2 4, 20 1 5 , after revi e win g the presentenc e On December 22, 20 1 4 , this Court ordere d App e llant be co nunitted to DOC custody for a charge s were withdrawn, terro riz e in vio l ation of 1 8 Pa.C . S.A . § 2 9 0 1 ( a) ( 3 ) on S e ptemb er 26, 2 0 1 4 . T h e rem aining 

# . On August 25, 2015, Appe ll ant entered a Gu il ty Plea the Kidnapping charge . T hi s Court gr an ted Ap p ellant' s 

### petition. to Ap point and Fu nd an E x p ert to Provide an Opinio n as t o Guilty f . . I bu t Mentally Ill on · S eptembe r 11, 2014 . A fte r wi th dr awing bis g uil ty p l ea, Appel l ant e nte red a p lea of Guilty b ut Mentally Ill t o Ki dnapping 

### with the Intent To infli c t bodily 

### injury on o r to :' S u b j ecting Another to Physical Co n tac t in violation of 1 8 Pa . C.S . .A.· § 2 7 09(a )(1) . f a . C S . A : 2 7 01( a )(l) , Fal s e Jmprisomnen t iri vio l ation of 1 8 Pit . C .S .A. 29 03 ( a ) , _Resisting Arrest or O the r La~ Enforcement in violation of 18 P

_ a . C.S . .A. § 51 0 4 , and Harassment+ IVV , ') / U'7 r . 't4

(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: 52AM5

v . B uny, 7 6 5 A.2 d 1144 (P a . Sup er . . 2000) . take th e po s ition 

### th at if a court is in p osses s i on of 

### the facts , 

### it~ fail t o app l y them to th e case at hand . " Id . See 

### Co mmonwe al th v . Bo y e r, 8 56 A. 2 149 (P a . Sup e r . 2004); 

### Commonweal th

. . A . 2d 12, 1 8 (P a. 1988) . The Dev er s co urt further articu l ated th at " i t w ould be 

### foo li sh, in d e ed . to se n tence re p o rt constitu tes the re c ord and speaks fo r i tse lf." C om:mohwe alth v. D ev e ~, 54.6 c harac te r an d weighe d tho se considerati o ns al o n g w ith mitig ating statuto ry fa ctors. A pre ~ that the se ntenc ing co urt "was aw are o f rel e v ant information. concerning the d e fend ant ' s

. . Furth e r, 

### i f a Pre

- S en ten c e In v e stig ative R ep o rt exists , P e nns y l vania C ourts shall p res um e Gallagher, 442 ~2d 820 (Pa. Super . 1982) , c o op er ati o n with l aw e nforce men t a g ents . Comm o nweal th v. J3eg_I e y, 780 A . 2d 605 , 644 (Pa . 2001)~ Co mmonwealth Y, Constantin e , 478 A.2d 39 (P a . Super, 1984); Co:mmonweal th v . b y c onsid erin g hi s de mean o r , apparen t re mo rse , mani fes t ation o f so c i al co ns c i e n ce , an d 42 Pa.C . S . §9721(b ). A s e nten c ing cou rt m ay d e termine a defendant' s p otential for re habilitatio n on the life . of the vic tims and on th e c ommunity, and th e rehabilitativ e n ee ds of the d efe n d ant. " " co nsiste nt with th e protection 

### o f th e publi c , th e gr avity o f the offens e 

### as i t relate d t o the imp act 

### Walls, 926 

### A.2d at 961-62 ( citations omitted) . Furth ermore , 

### a se nten ce of co nfin e me n t 

### mu st b e 

# . Simpl y state d, th e se nten c ing c ourt s e n tenc e s flesh- an d -b lood defendants and th e nuanc es of s e ntencing d e cis i ons are difficult to g aug e from the c old tran s crip t used up o n appellate revi e w . M o re ove r , th e sen tencing court en jo y s an in s titutio n al ad vanta g e t o appell ate re v i e w , bringing to i ts decisions an e x p e rti se , ex peri e n ce , and judgment that should no t. be lightly disturb e d, E v e n wi th the ad v e nt o f the sentencin g guideline s , the powe r of

. s ente n ci ng is a fun c ti o n to b e performed by th e s ente ncin g co urt. Thu s, rather than cab in th e exercise of a senten c ing co urt 's di sc reti on, th e guid e lin e s m ere l y inform th e sente ncing dec i si o n . ' t I st andard is as foll ows: 1 046 (Pa . 2 00 3) . ·Th e rationale offered by th e Penn sy lvania Supre me Co urt for thi s d e fe renti al · court mi g ht hav e re ac h e d a differ e nt c onclu s ion. . . . ., 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 Inimposing 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 not7



### 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 9:53AMw ell in a state correc ti o n al fa c ility with a stron g 

### ps ychi atric ba c kup . 

## N . T. Septe ~b e r 

### 26, 2014, . ·

Appe llant did n o t n e ed to b e c o mmi tte d to facility like N o rri s t o wn or W arre n S tate , but w o ul d d o

. . 

### 4

- 5. Additi o nally, the Court co nsid ere d the p o tential h arm to pub lic that 

### Appellant c ould cause.



## - Id . at 7 . Fmth enno re> th e Court t oo k into consi derati o n the 

### fact that the expert o pin ed that · 

### . . al s o cons i d ere d the fa ct that Ap pe ll ant di d n ot 

### reall y ac cept respo nsi b ili ty fo r hi s b ehavi or. Id. a f ai lure s t o a ddre ss hi s mental illn es s and fo llo w throu gh with treatm en t Id . at 4 , 8 . Th e Court men tal 

### illn ess . The vi ctim w a s found nake d , bloody, and bruis ed from b e ing repeatedl y sh ov ed, p unc h ed , an d 

### ki c ke d . Th e Cou rt also c on s i d ered App e llan t ' s prior 

### c riminal history, his p ri or a vi ol e n t incid e n t in w hi c h Appell an t imprisoned and b eat his girlfri e n d while suffering fro m hallu c inatio ns du e to th efa ct that App e 1lan t f aile d to take bi s pres crib ed m edi cation fo r hi s e val uation report, and App e llant ' s te stimon y in thi s cas e. N . T . March 24, 20 1 5, p.12. This was 

### a g gravatin g and mitigating fac to r s, the pre s en ten c e 

### investi g ation repo rt , th e psyc hi atric offe ns e as it rel ate s t o th e 

### imp ac t on the vi c tim and th e c ommunity. This Court considere d all th e n eeds of th e Ap pellant, as we ll as th e s afety 

## and protection of th e 

### public an d the grav ity of the As pre viously stated, in imposing s e nte nce, this Court did co nsi d er th~ re habili tativ e 42 Pa.C.S . A. § 9121(b) . (b) General standards=-In se l ec ting from 

### th e al te rnati ves se t fo rth in sub s e c ti o n (a ) , th e c ourt shall follow the gen er al principle that th e sen tence imp o s ed s h o uld call for c onfin e ment that is c o nsistent 

### with th e pr o tecti o n of the public, th e g ravi ty o f the off e n se as it relates to the impa c t 0 11 the life of the victim 

### and on th e communi ty, and the rehabilit ative needs of th e defendant. . · supervi s ion a senten c ing court may imp ose : Th e Sente ncing Code state s the fo ll o win g re gardin g the ty pes o f c onfinetilent and" , norms i s without merit Appellant' s assertion that the C ourt abu s ed i ts di s cretion or vio l ated b asic sen tencing

8 . , 

### N o . 5 76 9 P. 9 Vet. 

## n . 201'; 9:5 3 AM

# , 9 c on s i dered all fac t s in th e re co rd> in c luding the presente n c e inv es tigation report and the nature 

### of the c ase and goals of s entencing are also accorded weight. Inthis ca s e, the Court found

. that th e fact o rs in fav or o f incarc er ation outw ei ghed those infav or o f prob ation. The Court 9722 are to 

### be g iven w e i g ht in fav or of 

### probati o n , but do not mand ate p r obation. ~e nten c ing discretion remains 

### with the court . Moreover, th e other facts and c ircumstances surrounding the states that the grounds listed therein are to be given weight in fav or of pro bation, but are n o t

· controlling . upon the di scre ti o n of the court. 42 Pa . C.S.A, § 9722. 

### The fa c tors under Sectio n Appell an t's claims 

# are again. w i thout m erit. In S ec tion 

### 9722 1 the l e gislature specifically resultin g in a m ani fe s t abus e of dis c retion and violated basi c se n tencin g norms. 972 2( 10). Appellant c l ai m s that violating th e se spe c i fi c pr o vi sio ns of th e S ent enc ing Code 9722 (2) , fail e d t o con si d er " substantial ground s te n din g to e xc use or j us tify'' Appellant' s c ondu ct under Pa. C: ~.A. § 9722(4 ) , and failed t o c o ns id er th e e xp ert' s opinion that Appellant would be "partic ularly likely Jo respond affirm atively 

### to probatio n ary tre atment" under Pa . C.S.A. § contemplate that his co nduct w ould caus e o r threaten s eri ous harm" und er 42 P a . C .S.A . § fail e d to co n s id er that factor s t o be giv e n w e ight in fav or of probation under 4 2 P a .C . S .A . . 

### § 9722 . Spe c ifical l y, Ap pellan t c ontends that the Court failed to c onsider that Appellant " did not App e llant' s s eco nd, third, and fourth matters c o mplain e d on appeal as s ert th at the Co urt . B. - D. Whether the Court Abused Its Dbc re tion or Otherwise Violated Specifie Provisions of the Sentencing Code b y Failing to Give Adequate Weight to Fa c to r s in Fav or of Pro bation? purp os es of s entencing. 

## . . . s e ntence of impris o nment within th e g uidelin e s was th e most appropri ate and best served the p. 10. 

### This Court determined in its dis c retion that based on th e Appellant's char a cter,

. b a ckgr ound, p s ychological rep o rt , e xp ert te s tim o n y, and the nature of th e off e n s e itself , a

, t" I . '\10

state d : " a pre-sente n c e 

### report cons ti tutes 

### the record an d sp eaks for 

### its e lf," 

## !!h I n ad diti on t o th e inve s ti gati on repo rt and p syc h o l ogic al e x aminati o n p ri o r t o S en te nc ing . A s th e C o u rt in D evers A s pre vi ous l y state d ab o ve, the Co urt in thi s 

### matter reviewed bo th th e pres e n tence De v e l' s, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa . 1 . 988). Apre-sen te n c e report constitutes th e reco rd and speaks for i tse lf . In ord er t o dis p el 

### any lingering doubt as to our inte n tio n of engaging in an eff o rt 

### o f l egal purifi cation , we st ate cl e arly that se nte nce r s are u n der n o compul si on to e mpl oy c h ec kli s ts or any e xtend ed o r sy st e m atic d e fini tions o f th e ir puni s hm e nt p r oce dure . H avin g b e en full y inf orm e db y the pre - se ntence rep ort, the se n te ncin g c ourt' s dis c re tio n s h o uld n o t b ? disturb e d . Fu rther , th e Su preme C ourt of Pe nnsylv ania exp lain e d in ColilkJ1onwealth v. 

### D ev ers, 4 2 P a . C. S .A . § 97 2 l(b). In ev ery c a s e in w hich the co urt impo ses a se n te n ce for a fe l o n y o r mis d e m eano r , modifie s a se nte n ce , rese nte nc e s an offe nd er foll o win g re voc ation of pr o b ati on, co u nty interme di ate punishment or S t ate interm edi ate puni s hm ent o r resenten ce s fo l lo win g re mand , th e court s hall make as a part of the re cord , an d di s c l o s e tn ope n co urt at the ' tim e of s entencing , a statemen t o f the reaso n or reas ons for th e sentence i mp osed . The rele v an t porti o n o f Se c tion 9 721 (b) prov i d e s th at: s e nten ce " in vi o lation o f 4 2 Pa . C.S . A. § 9 ?2 1 (b). found ag gr av ating circ um s tances , 

### the y w ere n o t adequate ly e xplained in the court's " reasons fo r Appellant's final matter c omplained o f on appeal a sse rt s th at to whate ver exte nt the c ourt E . Whe ther the Cou1-t Abus e d Its Discretion In Faili ng to A~nately Etplai n 

# Any Aggr.a : vating Circumstances i n the Court ' s "Rea s o n s For Se n tence;' ln Violati on of 4 2 Pa . C . S . A. §972l(b)? . s entence imposed was approp riat e . s entencing purpo s es of rehabilitation, deterrence , and iuc apa ~i tatio n. As ex p l aine d in above , the Court dis c ussed spe cific factors re garding the App e llant and de termined that, in its-.jμdgm ent, th e psy c hologic al exam report, appli e d su c h facts to th e S e nte ncin g C o de, 

### an d b alanc e d th e 

### No. 5769 P . 1 1

,, rres p o nsibility, rather such a determination depend s upon the facts of th e c as e. Th e facts of this c as e indi cate 

### that th e Appell an t admitted to l o c king the door s 

### of th e house an d atte mpting to force the evil s pirits out of the victim. Th e App e llant admitted thal h e was off bis medic ation at the time of the· offense bec ause he failed to refill his pres cription and tho ug ht he no long er s am e off ense . In ad dition, m e ntal illn e ss alone cannot ab s olve a defendant from crimin al be sente nced to 

### an y se n te nce that m ay l awfully be impos e d upon a defendant c onvicted of the state d , und er P e nnsylvani a l aw , a d efendant whose pl e a of guilty but mentally ill is accepted may illness with what the law and s oci e ty require , esp ec ially the safety of others. As pre viousl y ' AB such, this Court h a d to balance what th e Ap pe llant requires in light of 

### his m e ntal steroids s in c e 2007. and Ambien, which he failed to take at the time of the offense . Appellant has also be e n hospitalized in the past for men t al health treatment in 200 5 and 2011 . Appellant h a s been using dating back to 2005 . The App e llant 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 De l usional 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 c ondition 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 th e victim> as well as

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

. . p re sentence report and psychological exam reports, 

### the Court made on the record references to · · .. · J, v / r • IL

- : 

### , , · I 

### \ •.·1 2

' l ! f . j : 

# .J.. I ;

. ! / 

## i I< 

# _ -- -----

CC : N o ti c e of th e 

### entry o f the fo re g o ing Memorandum h as been provid e d to each party purs uant t o Pennsylvani a Rule of C rimin al Pr oc edure 1 14 b y m ailin g tim e -stamp e d copi es t o th e following individual s: Jud gment o f Sen tence o f this Co urt sh o uld be affirmed . an d giv e n th e facts and c irc umstance s o f thi s c a s e. Th ere fore , thi s Co urt ' s M arc h 24 , 2015 A cc ordin g ly , the se nt e nc e imp o se d by this ' C ourt was ap p r o priate und er th e guid elines C ONCLUSION fac t o r s a od n o abu se o f disc re tio n occurre d . o b s ervations s tate me n ts du ring s en te ncing , thi s Court did ad e quate l y des c ribe the aggr av ating T h erefore, b ased on the p re s e nte n ce rep o rt , p s y c hological e xam reports , and th e C ourt ' s th e standard r ang e of fo rty - tw o (4 2 ) to nin e ty (90) m o n ths impri sonment. health s ervice to aid the Appellan t in hi s re h abilitati on . Thus , this Co urt s e nte nce d App e llant in ', 

### therapy and tre atm e nt. 

### Incarcer ationin a st ate corre ctional facility will pr ovi d e a level o f 

### men t al unmedi c ate d w arrants intensiv e monito ring thr o u g h incarceration with o n goin g p syc h o lo gical _ Appellant' s mental i lln e ss coupled with th e vio l ent and aggressiv e b e h avior he exhi b ite d whe n treatme n t for s e v er al year s and s tated that h e w as s orry for co mmitting th e c rime . Howe ver, th e . y' A c cordingl y, th e Court re c ogni ze d that the App e llant b a s re c e i ved mental h e alth th e Appellant is st abili z ed in th e structured environment of the prison. n e eded it. The Appellant bas shown that he cannot self

- remediate his mental imp airmen ts, r ath er



### N o . 5 769 P. 1 3

, - V er. LL . LU I ? Y : '>'> AM