J-A24045-15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

v.

WILLIAM TARDELLA,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 546 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 12, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-52-CR-0000236-2014

BEFORE: PANELLA, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 11, 2015

William Tardella (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed after he pled guilty to numerous counts of distribution of child 

pornography and possession of child pornography. We affirm.

Appellant was charged with 30 counts of distribution of child 

pornography, 300 counts of possession of child pornography, and 1 count of 

criminal use of a communication facility as a result of an Internet 

investigation conducted by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General to 

identify those possessing and sharing child pornography. On August 28, 

2014, Appellant pled guilty to counts 1-15, relating to distribution of child 

pornography, and counts 151-300, relating to possession of child 

pornography; the remaining counts were dismissed. The factual basis of the 

plea to the counts of distribution of child pornography was as follows:
J-A24045-15

- 2 -

Between the dates of December 11, 2013 and March 4, 2014, 

[Appellant] was in possession of 15 videos and/or images 

depicting children under 13 years of age in a state of nudity 

and/or engaging in sexual activity, that was distributed to an 

agent of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General via the 

eDonkey2000 peer to peer network. 

Guilty Plea Colloquy, 8/28/2014, at 4. The factual basis of the plea to the 

counts of possession of child pornography was that Appellant possessed 

“150 videos and/or images depicting children under 13 years of age in a 

state of nudity and/or engaging in sexual activity.” Id. at 5. 

On December 12, 2014, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate 

term of 3 to 10 years of incarceration.1 Appellant timely filed a 

 

1 The breakdown of Appellant’s sentence is as follows:

On counts 1 through 4, [Appellant is to] be incarcerated in 

a state correctional facility for a period of not less than six (6) 

months nor more than twenty (20) months to be served 

consecutive to one another.

On counts 5 and 6[, Appellant is to] be incarcerated in a

state correctional facility for a period of not less than six (6) 

months nor more than twenty (20) months to be served 

consecutive to one another and consecutive to the sentence 

imposed on counts 1 through 4.

On counts 7 through 15[, Appellant is to] be incarcerated 

in a state correctional facility for a period of not less than six (6) 

months nor more than twenty (20) months to be served 

concurrent to one another and to the sentences imposed on 

counts 1 through 6.

On counts 151 through 300[, Appellant is to] be 

incarcerated in a state correctional facility for a period of not less 

than six (6) months nor more than twenty (20) months to be 

served concurrent to one another and to the sentences imposed 

on counts 1 through 15....
J-A24045-15

- 3 -

post-sentence motion, which was denied on January 30, 2015. Appellant 

then timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court directed Appellant to 

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant filed a 1925(b) statement. 

The trial court subsequently issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a). 

On appeal, Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence.

It is well settled that, with regard to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing, there is no automatic right to appeal.

Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a 

challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence], 

we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: 

(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether 

Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether 

Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with 

respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and 

(4) whether the concise statement raises a 

substantial question that the sentence is appropriate 

under the sentencing code.... [I]f the appeal satisfies 

each of these four requirements, we will then 

proceed to decide the substantive merits of the case.

Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations 

omitted).

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal; he preserved his issue in his 

post-sentence motion; and his brief contains a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement. 

 

Order, 12/12/2014, at 1-3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
J-A24045-15

- 4 -

Thus, we must determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial 

question worthy of appellate review.

The determination of what constitutes a substantial question 

must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 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.

Disalvo, 70 A.3d at 903 (quoting Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 

935 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

Appellant essentially alleges that the trial court’s decision to impose 

certain sentences consecutively resulted in an unreasonable aggregate 

sentence in light of the mitigating factors he presented at sentencing.

Generally, Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court 

discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively 

to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to 

sentences already imposed. Any challenge to the exercise of 

this discretion ordinarily does not raise a substantial question. 

In fact, this Court has recognized the imposition of consecutive, 

rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial 

question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where 

the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature 

of the crimes and the length of imprisonment. That is[,] in our 

view, the key to resolving the preliminary substantial question 

inquiry is whether the decision to sentence consecutively raises 

the aggregate sentence to, what appears upon its face to be, an 

excessive level in light of the criminal conduct at issue in the 

case.

Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted).
J-A24045-15

- 5 -

Here, Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 3 to 10 years of 

incarceration for possessing 150 videos and/or images depicting child 

pornography and distributing 15 of such videos and/or images. Significantly, 

Appellant received consecutive sentences on only 6 of the 165 counts to 

which he pled guilty. In light of Appellant’s criminal conduct, we cannot 

conclude that the consecutive nature of Appellant’s sentences raises his 

aggregate sentence to a facially-excessive level. Thus, Appellant has failed 

to present a substantial question.2 See Austin, 66 A.3d at 809 (concluding 

that the appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence did 

not raise a substantial question where the appellant’s aggregate sentence 

was 35 to 70 years of incarceration, included consecutive sentences on 47 of 

96 counts of possession of child pornography, and stemmed from appellant’s 

possession of 96 images stored on the appellant’s computer and flash 

drives).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

 

2

Further, this Court has held that an “assertion of abuse of discretion for 

imposing consecutive sentences without properly considering mitigating 

factors fails to present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008).
J-A24045-15

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/11/2015