### J - S59016 - 16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. IGNACIO CARTEGENA, Appellant No. 2043 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of April 28 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 51 - CR - 0010833 - 2012 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON and FITZGERALD,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016 Appellant, Ignacio Cartegena, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on April 28, 2015 in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm. The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history in this case as follows. [O]n November 23, 2011, a van pulled onto the 2200 block of West Huntingdon Street in Philadelphia. Two men (one of whom was wearing a mask) stepped out of the van. Both had firearms and began shooting. Mark Plaire (“Plaire”) was on the block when the van pulled up and the shooting began. Thinking the men were firing at him, Plaire removed a .45 caliber pistol from his waistband, fired two shots in the direction of the m en (whom he later identified as “Tay” and “Man
- Man”), and ducked into his house. When Plaire walked back outside, he saw [Appellant]
-- whom he knew as “Gaby”
-- firing at Tay and Man
- Man. [Appellant’s] girlfriend, Shannon Robinson (“Robinson”), was also on the scene. [Appellant] pushed Robinson to the ground during the crossfire. [At trial, Robinson testified that Appellant

### J - S59016 - 16

- 2 -

possessed a gun at the scene of the November 23, 2011 shooting on West Huntingdon Street.] Following a January 26, 2015 waiver tri al, th[e trial] court found [Appellant] guilty of [carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106), person not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105), and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.)] The court deferred sentenci ng for completion of a presentence investigation. On April 28, 2015, the court sentenced [Appellant] to an aggregate term of six to seventeen years of incarceration, followed by three years of probation. [Appellant] (through counsel) filed a post
- sentenc e motion on May 3, 2015. The court denied the motion without a hearing on June 12, 2015. [Appellant] filed a timely notice of appeal on July 8, 2015, a court - ordered statement of errors complained on appeal (“[concise s]tatement”) on August 5, 2015, and a supplemental statement of errors (“[s]upplemental [s]tatement”) on September 19, 2015. [Among other issues, Appellant] raised the following claims of error in his [concise s]tatement[:] The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict [Appel lant] under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 because the Commonwealth did not present evidence that [Appellant] possessed a “firearm” as defined by 18 Pa.C.S. § 6102; The verdict was against the weight of the evidence because there was no “physical, forensic, or scientific evidence” of [Appellant’s] guilt; one eyewitness did not “adopt or corroborate his prior statement to the police” that [Appellant] possessed a firearm at the time in question; and another eyewitness had motive to lie[.] Trial Court Opinion, 11/ 30/15, at 1
- 3. We carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the parties, and the opinion of the trial court. Based upon our review, we concur in the trial court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to sustai n Appellant’s conviction under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106

### J - S59016 - 16

- 3 -

because the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed a firearm as defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/15, at 4
- 5 (finding sufficient evidence of A ppellant’s use of firearm in Plaire’s prior statement to police that men involved in shooting used 9mm automatic weapons and officer’s recovery of over 40 fired 9mm cartridges from West Huntingdon crime scene). We also conclude that the trial court proper ly exercised its discretion in rejecting Appellant’s claim that his convictions for carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106), person not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105), and carrying a firearm in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 610 8) were against the weight of the evidence. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/15, at 5
- 6 (finding Plaire’s prior statement to police corroborated by other evidence and worthy of belief while Plaire’s inability at trial to recall Appellant’s involvement in sh ooting was contrived to avoid testifying; finding further that Robinson’s testimony concerning Appellant’s involvement in shooting and possession of a gun was not motivated by bias against Appellant). Because the trial court adequately and accurately addr essed the issues raised on appeal, we adopt its opinion as our own. We direct the parties to include the trial court’s opinion in all future filings that relate to our disposition of this appeal. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

### J - S59016 - 16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/9/2016

# -
... . 

## , - \_

_ , i 1 " P e r s on s no t to po ss e ss , u s e, man u fa c tu re , c on tro l , se ll or tran s f er fi re arm s ." 2 " Fi r e arm s not t o b e c arri e d w ith o ut a l i c e n s e. " 3 " Carry in g firearm s on p u b l ic s tr e et s or p u b li c pr o p e rty in Phil a d e lp hi a ." 

## 111 

# I 11 I I 1111111111 

# II I 1111 7 3 755500 2 1 CP
- 5 1 .CR-00 1 0833-2012 comrn . v . c arteg e na .tgn3cio Opin i on 

### of e rr o r s 

### complain e d of on app eal ( " S tat e m e nt " ) on A u g u s t 5 , 20 1 5, and a s uppl e m e ntal Th e d e fend ant fi l e d a tim e ly noti ce of ap p e al on Jul y 8, 2 015 , a c ourt
- ord e r e d s t ate me n t moti on without a he arin g on Jun e 1 2 , 2 0 1 5
. de fe n d an t (throug h c oun s el) filed a p o s t
- s e n t ence m o ti o n o n M ay 3 , 2015
. Th e c ourt deni e d the te rm o f s ix to s evente e n ye ar s o f in c ar c e rati o n , follow e d b y th r e e year s o f prob ation. Th e p r e s e n t e n ce i nv es ti g ation. O n April 2 8, 20 1 5, th e c o urt s e nt e n c e d th e d e fe nd ant t o an a gg r e g at e d e fendan t " ) gu il ty o f thr e e violation s o f th e Uniform Fire arms A c t: 1 8 P a . C
. S
. § 

### 610 5; 1 

### 18 Pa
. C. S. § 

### 6 106 ; 2 

### and 18 P a . C. S
. § 6108. 3 

### The court de ferred se nt e n c in g for co mp l e ti o n of a F o llowing a January 2 6, 20 1 5 wai v e r tri al , th .i s c o u rt fo u nd I g n ac i o C art e ge n a ("th e I. 

### PRO CE DURAL HIS T ORY N O V EM B ER 3 0 , 2 015 WO E LP P E R , J. OPINIO N SU P E RI OR C O U R T 2 0 4 3 E DA 2 01 5 IGNACIO C AR T E GE NA V . 

### C P

- 5 1

- C R

- O O l 0 8 3 3 -2012 COMMONW EA L TH OF P ENNSYLVA N IA fN 

### THE CO U R T O F C OM MO N P L EA S

FI R S T J U DICI AL DIS T RI CT O F P E N NSYLVANI A

C RIMIN A L TRI A L DIVI S I ON - •1 I , - . ,._,_ .ll Circulated 07/28/2016 02:27 PM2 4 On A u g u s t I 0 , 2 01 5 , th e c ourt grant e d th e d e fe nd an t ' s " R eq u e st fo r E x t e n s io n o f T im e t o F il e a Su ppl e m e nt al S t at e m e nt o f Erro r s Co mp l ai n e d o f on Ap peal Pur s u ant t o Pa. R. A. P. I 925 (b )" b e cau s e th e n ec e ss ary not es o f t e s timon y w e r e n o t y e t av ailable
. 5 In hi s S tat e m e nt, th e d efe n dant rai sed a g e n e r al in s u ffic i e ncy c l aim as t o all thre e char g es . Se e S t at e m e nt at ,i 9( a ). O nl y in hi s S up pl e m e ntal S t at e m e nt did h e s p ec ifi c all y i de nti fy wh at e vid e n ce w as in suffic i en t (i
. e. , e v i de n ce th at th e d ef e ndant po ss es s e d a " fir e arm" a s d e fi n e d in 1 8 Pa
. C. S. § 6 10 2 )
. See S up p l e m e nt al S t ate m e nt at 

### f 11
. 6 Th e de fe nd an t's cl aim of an " undul y har s h and ex c e ss i ve " se nten ce w as rai se d o nl y in hi s o ri g in al S t ate m e n t. S ee S t at e me nt at ,i 9 ( c ). the m e n we r e fi rin g at him , P l ai.r e re m o v e d a .4 5 cal ibe r pis tol fr om hi s w ai s tband, fi red two P l air e ("Pl air e ") w as on th e block wh e n th e v an pull e d up and the s ho otin g b e gan . 

### Id. Thinking we ari ng a ma s k) s t e pp e d out o f th e van. 

### I d. B oth h a d firearm s and b eg an s h o ot i n g . 

### I d. Mark Philad e lphia. No t es o f Te stim o ny (" N.T. " ), J an. 2 6 , 2 01 5 , at p , 2 0. Two m e n (one of whom w as N o ve mb er 2 3, 2011 , a v an pull ed o nt o th e 22 00 b lo c k o f W e s t Hunti ngdo n S tr ee t in T h e evid e nc e at trial 

### in th e li g ht m o s t favo rab l e to the Co mm o nw ea lth e s t abli s h e d th at o n 

### ' IL F A CT S ju d g m en t o f se nt e n ce sh ou ld b e a ffirm e d. F o r th e foll ow in g r easo n s, th e d efe nd a nt' s all egatio n s o f e rror l ac k m e ri t, and th e 

### (3) The co urt impo s ed an " unduly h ar s h and e xcessi ve s en te nc e . " 6 fir e arm at th e time 

### in que s tion; and another e y e witnes s had motiv e tolie ; and "a dopt or c orro b o rate his prior st atement to po lice" th at th e d e f e ndan t p os s es s e d a fo r en s i c, or s ci e nti fi c e vid e nc e " o f th e d e fendant's g uilt; o ne e y ew itn ess did not 

### ( 2 ) The v e r d ict w a s a gain s t th e w e ig h t o f th e evid e nc e be cau se th e r e wa s n o "phy si cal , defendan t p osse s sed a " fir earm " as de fin e d b y 18 P a . C. S
. § 610 2 ; 5 Pa.C.S. 

### § 6106 bec au se th e C o mmo n w ea lth did not pr e sent e vid e nc e th at th e ( 1) The e vid e n ce wa s insuffici e nt a s a m att er o f law t o convi c t th e d e fendant und e r 18 raised th e followin g cl aim s of e rror i n hi s Statem e n t and S upplem e nt a l S t at e m e nt: st atement of error s ("Supplem e nt al Stat e ment") on S eptember 19 , 2015. 4 The d e fe nd ant h a s3

evi d e n c e , w as s u ffic i e nt to prove th at th e d e fendant po ssess e d a 

### " f ire arm ." Fi r s t , both P l air e and The e v i de n ce o n th e recor d, a l o n g wi th a ll o f th e r e a so n able i nfere n c e s dra wn fro m th at [ a ) ny pi s to l o r re vo l v e r with a barr e l l e n g th l ess th an 1 5 i n c h e s, any s h o t g u n wi th a barr e l l e ng th l ess th an 18 inches o r any rifl e w ith a bane ! l e n g th l e ss th an 1 6 in c h e s, o r an y pis t o l , re vo l ver, rifl e or s h o t gu n w ith an overa ll l e n gth of l es s th an 2 6 in c h e s . T h e barrel l eng th of a fir earm s ha ll b e d e t ermin e d b y m e as u ri n g from th e mu z z l e o f the barre l to th e face of th e cl os e d ac ti on , b olt o r cy lind e r , w hi ch e ver i s applicab l e . "fi r e arm . " Sec ti o n 6 10 2 d e fin es a firearm a s: He r e, th e defe n dant h a s c h a ll e n g e d th e s ufficie n cy o f th e e v i de n ce th at he p o s s es sed a r e v i e w in g c ourt " m ay no t s ub s ti tu t e it s ju d g m e nt fo r th at of th e fac t finder. " I d. e ve ry m at e ri al e l eme nt o f th e c ri me c h arged. I d
. 

### If th e r e c o r d s u p p o rt s th e v e r di c t , th e evide n c e i s s u ffic i e n t i f i t es t ab li s h e s b e yo nd a r e a so n abl e do u bt th at th e d efendan t co m mi tte d from th e e vi d e n ce . " See C o m monw e a l th v. Sa nt ia g o, 98 0 A.2d 659, 662 (Pa
. S u per . 2 00 9)
. The Co mm o n wea lth , "g ivi n g th e pro s ecu ti o n the bene fi t of a ll rea s on ab l e in fe r e n c e s t o b e drawn e vi de n c e , th e ap p ell at e c ourt v i ew s th e ev iden ce in the li g ht mo st favo rabl e t o th e " fir e arm " a s defin ed in 18 P a.C.S. § 610 2
. In re v ie v.. 

### - in g a c h all e n g e to th e s u fficie n cy o f th e T h e C o mm o nw e al th p re se n te d s uffi c i e n t evid e nce th at th e d efendant p os s es s e d a A
. S uffici e ncy of the E vidence III
. DIS C U S SI ON p u s h e d R o bi ns on t o th e groun d duri n g th e crossfi r e. I d. at 39. g irlfri e nd , S hannon R o b ins on ( " Ro b i n s on " ), wa s al s o o n the s cene . 

### kl at 27 ; 3 8
. Th e defe n dant wh o m he kn ew a s " G aby" - fi rin g at Tay an d M an - M an. I d. at 21 and 2 5. Th e d e fe nd an t's du ck e d int o hi s h ouse . I d at 1 9-21
. Wh en P l ai re wal ked b a ck ou t s i d e , h e saw th e d e fe nd ant - s h ots i n th e d ir ec ti on of th e m e n ( w ho m h e l at er i denti fie d a s "Tay" an d "Man -Man "), and4 7 A t tri al , P l ai re tes ti fi e d c o ns i s t e ntl y w i th hi s Jun e 4, 2 01 2 s t at e m e nt as to w h ere and when th e s h o oti n g t oo k p l ace and a s t o T ay 's and Man

- M an 's i n v o l v e me n t. N
. T., J an . 2 6, 20 1 5, at p . 20-22. T he c ou rt fo un d in c r ed i b l e th at th e only " d e tai l " Pl ai re co uld n ot r e m e mb e r w as th e d efe nd a nt' s i n vo l v e m e n t ( o r e v e n the de fendant' s n am e ). Id. at 22. 8 P l ai re w as s ho w n h i s s t ate m e n t at tri al and id e ntified ce r t ain s ign atur es or initi al s a s h is o wn . H ede n ied o r c laimed n ot to be abl e t o i d e n ti fy o ther s. De t ec ti v e Gau l , after t estify in g t o hi s pro t oc o l w h e n t aki n g a s tat eme n t ( i n c lud in g tr an sc rib i n g th e que sti o n s as k e d an d an s w e r ed and g i vi n g th e witn ess the tr ansc ri p tio n to r ev i ew, read al oud , and confirm as ac cu rat e b y s i g n in g and i niti a li n g ) , t es tified th at P lai r e had , in fac t , s i gned and in iti al e d th e s t ateme nt. T h e c o u rt fo und D e t ecti ve Gaul ' s t es tim ony c r ed ible an d be l ieved th at P l ai re h a d given (and a d o pted by s i g n atur e ) th e s tat em en t as transc rib e d
. Se e Co mm on w e a lth v. P r es bu r y, 665 A. 2 d 82 5 , 832 (Pa
. S u p e r. 1 995) (witne s s's s i g n atur e o n s t at e m e nt at tim e i t wa s m a d e co n stitute d "a d o p ti o n " e v e n th ou gh at tri al w itn ess de n i e d h a vi n g m a d e m an y p o rtion s of s tatem e n t )
. co u rt , a c ti n g a s fac t fi nd e r , r e a s on ab l y conclud e d that so me of th e 9 mm l u ge r c artri dge c as in gs th e s h o oti n g app e ar e d t o b e usin g 9 mm aut o m ati cs. N
. T
. , Jan . 26, 2 015 , at pp . 26

- 2 7
. T he 9 mm l u g er ca s i n gs. This , too , w as co n s ist e nt with P l ai re ' s s t at e m e nt th at th e men involved in
. t es tim o ny that he had s h ot hi s .45 ca lib e r pi s to l twic e . The r e m ainin g c a s in gs wer e identified as pi s to l ) wer e recov e r e d on P l aire 's po r c h. Thi s p h y s ic al e vidence w a s c o n s i stent with Pl ai r e' s fro m the s ce ne . 

### S e e Commonw ea lth Tri al Ex hi bit C

- 4
. T wo 

### of th e ca s in gs ( fro m a .45 c al ib e r Fi n a ll y, Phi l a d e l p hi a Po li ce Offic e r E dwar d Fi d l e r recover e d 4 6 fired c artri d ge ca s i ng s 

### Liv e l y, 6 1 0 A.2d 7 ( P a . 1 9 9 2))
. 8 Su p er . 2014) (ci ting 

### Co m mon w eal th v. B r ady, 5 07 A. 2d 6 6 (Pa
. 19 8 6) and 

### Commonwealt h v . p urposes and as s u b st anti ve e vid e nce . 

### See Co m mon w e a lth v. B u fo r d, 10 1 A.3d 1 182 , 1 2 0 1 ( P a. ex ami n ati on, th e tri a l co urt p ro pe rly ad mi tt e d th e J un e 4, 2 01 2 st ate m ent fo r bo th i mp eac hm ent De t ecti ve Gaul was give n und e r re li able c ir c um stan c e s an d th at P l aire wa s av ail abl e fo r cross N .T
. , Jan. 26, 2015, at p . 22. 7 Hav in g fo un d th at Plai r e' s pri o r i n c o n s i s t e n t st at e m e nt to co urt c on c l ude d that h e w as feigning a fai l ed m emo ry t o a v oid t es ti fy in g agai ns t th e defe n dant. h e di d no t re m emb e r i f th e defendant w a s o n e of the i n d i v i duals invo l v e d i n th e shooting , th e defendan t as th e i nd ividu al w h o s ho t at Tay an d Man -Man. A lthough Plair e t es tifi e d at trial that firi n g th e g u n . In h i s Ju n e 4 , 20 1 2 st at e ment t o D e tecti ve Th o ma s Gau l , Plair e i d e n tifi e d the R obin s o n obse rve d th e d efen d an t ho l ding a firearm
. S ec ond, Plair e ob s erve d the d e fe n d ant5 Co n trary to th e d efe nd ant ' s cl aim , the v e r d i c t was n o t a g ain st th e we i g h t o f th e e vid e nce p re s e nt e d at trial. A n e w trial is w arran ted onl y if th e jury' s " v e r d i c t is s o co ntrary t o th e
e v i d e n ce as to sh o ck s on e's s e ns e o f ju s ti c e ... " 

### Se e Comm o n w e a lt h v . Clay, 6 4 A.3 d 104 9 , 10 55 (Pa
. 2 0 I 3 ) (i nt e rn al q uot ati on and cit ati o n o mitt e d ). Fu rth e rm or e , i t i s w i th i n th e fa ct
- fi n de r 's dis cre ti o n to " believ e all, part , or non e of th e evi dence and to d e termine th e cred ibi l i ty o f th e
w itn es s es ... " 

### Comm o nw e a lth v. B ro wn , 71 A.3d 1009 , 10 13 ( P a . Su p e r. 2 01 3) (i.nt e rn al quot ation and c it ation om i tt ed ) , 

### a p pe al denie d , 77 A.3 d 6 35 ( P a. 2 0 I 3). As st ated above, the c o urt c onclud e d th at Pl aire ' s claim e d in abi l ity t o r ecall an y thing

a ssi g nin g c ul pability t o th e d efe nd ant w as c ontrived to a void te sti fyi ng again s t th e d efe nd ant. F urth e rmor e, th e c ourt b e li eved th e v e r s ion o f ev ent s r ec oun t e d in P l a ir e ' s J u n e 4 , 2 01 2

s tat e men t. Much o f P lair e 's e arli e r ac co unt w a s corro b orat ed b y o th e r evi den ce, inclu d in g Ro bin son' s t es ti mo ny and th e cas i ngs fo un d at the c rim e scene . Finall y , th e c o urt wa s u nc o n v in ce d th at R ob inso n ' s t es ti mo n y wa s m o tivat e d b y bi a s
a g ain s t the d e fendant. On cro s s -e xaminati o n, R o bin s on te s ti fi ed th at s h e ha d writt e n t o th e defe ndant while h e w as in car c e rat e d t o in form him that s he was e n d ing th e ir r e l ati o ns hi p b as e d

o n hi s infid e lity . N. T., Jan. 2 6 , 2 01 5 , at pp . 4 2

- 4 4. Th i s t e s tim o n y r e garding an u ndat e d

" bre akup " letter d id n o t outwei g h all o f the a for e -di s cu sse d ev id e nc e s up po rti ng th e c o urt 's

v e rdi c t. 

### S e e Clay, 64 A
. 3 d at 105 5 ( tri al c o u rt must d e t e rmi n e whe th e r "n o twithst and i n g a ll th e re co ver e d fro m the s c e n e were fr o m th e fir earm th e d e f e nd ant wa s s ho o tin g. B ec au se a 9 m m lu g e r i s a pi s tol w ith a b arrel l e n gth l e s s th an 1 5 in c he s, th e ev i d e nc e was suffi c i e n t to c onclud e th at th e defen d ant p o s se ss e d a " fir e arm" a s d efi n ed u n de r S e c ti on 6 1 02
.



### B
. Weigh! of the E v i den ce6 9 T he parties agre e d that the defendant's prior record score was a 5. N.T., Apr. 28, 2015, atp.4. Based on that prior record score, the guidelin e sentence range for a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 was 60-72 +/- 12 months of incarceration. The court sentenced the defendant to 4-10 years of incarceration. The defend ant's guideline range for a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 was 48-60 +/- 12 months of incarceration. The court sentenced the defendant to 

### 2-7 years of incarceration. Finally, the defendant's guideline range for a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6!08 was 12-18 +/- 3 months of incarceration. The court s entenced the defendant to 3 years of probation. mitigatin g factors). 

### See Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 761 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing presentence investigation report (including the defendant's rehabilitative needs and any protection of the public), testimony at the sentencing hearing , the defendant's allocution, and the sentencing guidelines, but also argument 

### by counsel (including argument as 

### to the need for range or 

### below the guidelines." In formulating the sentence, the court considered not only the excessive." The defendant's incarceration sentences were either within the mitigated guideline The defendant has not stated with specificity how his sentence is "unduly harsh and judgment."' 

### Walls, 926 A.2d at 963 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 978 l(c)(2). An "unreasonable" decision is one that is '"irrational' or 'not guided by sound to determin e whether the trial court's sentence is "clearly unreasonable." 42 Pa.C.S. § imposes a sentence within the sentencing guidelines, the appellate court must review the matter as to be clearly erroneous." 

### Id. (internal quotations omitted). When the sentencing court of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality , prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so 

### Commonwealth v. Walls , 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007). An abuse of discretion "requires a result 

### See Statement at ~9(c). Sentencing is a matter left to the sentencing 

### court's discretion. three years of probation , was not "unduly harsh and excessive," as the defendant has claimed. The defendant's aggregate sentence of six to seventeen years incarceration, followed by 

### C. Sentencing weight with all the facts is to deny justice."). facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal

### 7 . ' WOELPPER, J. For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed,



## - · ,;, 

# /!~ 1 1lff'f1___
_____ IV. CONCLUSION sentence. at sentencing, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant to serve a mitigated defendant's presentence report), Having given full and due consideration to the requisite factors considered defendant's rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors when court has r e viewed Commonwealth v. Devers , 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court hasJ Aly so n M
. B ag ley , Es
. L a w C l e rk to th e H o n . Do nn a M
. Wo e lpp e r 

# I

. , i Hu g h Bum s , C hi ef Ap pe al s U n it Philad e lphi a Di s tri ct A ttorn e y' s Offi ce 3 So uth P enn Squ are · Phil a d e lph ia , P A 19 1 0 7 J ame s R
. Ll o yd , II I, Es q. 1 6 17 J F K Bl vd
. Suit e 9 99 Ph i lad e lphi a, PA 1910 3 - --n I h e reb y ce rtify th at I am thi s 

### ,j{ J' day of No v e mb er , 201 5 , s e rvin g th e fo r eg oin g Opin i o n on th e p e r s on s indi cated bel ow b y fi r s t cl a ss mail : 

### PROOF O F SERVI C E 2 04 3 E DA 2 01 5 · IGN A CI O CART E G E N A

v s. C P

- 5 1- C R -OO 10 83 3- 20 12 C OMM O NW EA L T H OF P E J\TN S YL V A NI A 

### IN T HE CO UR T O F C O MMON P L EA S FIR S T JUDICIAL DI S TRICT OF P ENN S YLV A NI A TRIAL DIVI S ION - C RIMINAL SE C T ION