J-A15027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANTHONY BRUCE LOFTON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 36 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 5, 2023

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

No(s): CP-18-CR-0000420-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: JULY 12, 2024

Anthony Bruce Lofton (“Lofton”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed by the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas following the 

revocation of his probation. On appeal, Lofton challenges the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence. We affirm.

Lofton was arrested and charged with numerous crimes—including 

strangulation—stemming from a domestic violence incident with his paramour 

that occurred on May 29, 2019. On November 4, 2019, Lofton pled guilty to 

strangulation. The trial court subsequently sentenced Lofton to twelve months 

less one day to twenty-four months less one day in county jail, to be followed 

by a consecutive term of five years of probation. On June 11, 2020, Lofton 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15027-24

- 2 -

was released from prison, and he successfully served the parole portion of his 

sentence without incident. On July 22, 2022, Lofton tested positive for the 

use of methamphetamine, amphetamine, and admitted to the use of alcohol,

in violation of his probation. The trial court revoked Lofton’s probation and on 

August 22, 2022, sentenced him to twelve months less one day to twentyfour months less one day in prison, followed by three years of probation. The 

trial court, however, immediately paroled Lofton, as he had already served his 

minimum term at the time of sentencing. On October 20, 2022, Lofton again 

admitted to using methamphetamine and alcohol. On December 5, 2022, the 

trial court revoked Lofton’s parole, but immediately re-paroled him. 

Relevant herein, while Lofton was serving the probationary term of his 

second revocation sentence, he again admitted he was using controlled 

substances. As a result, the trial court revoked Lofton’s probation, and 

deferred sentencing pending the completion of an updated presentence 

investigation report. On December 5, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing 

hearing, at which it considered the updated pre-sentence investigation report, 

a victim impact statement, Lofton’s rehabilitative needs, his repeated 

probation and parole violations, and his substance abuse issues. The trial 

court ultimately sentenced Lofton to serve a prison term of 24 to 84 months, 

with credit for time served of 552 days. 
J-A15027-24

- 3 -

On appeal, Lofton presents the following issue for our review: “Did the 

trial court abuse its discretion when it imposed a minimum incarceration term 

at the absolute top end of the resentencing range?” Lofton’s Brief at 4.

The sole issue raised by Lofton challenges the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence. “A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be 

considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a 

claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 311 A.3d 12, 18 (Pa. 

Super. 2024) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 

A.3d 1030, 1039 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting there is “no distinction between 

discretionary sentencing claims generally and those that arise from revocation 

proceedings”). For a challenge to the discretionary aspect of a sentence,

[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. [708(E) (regarding post-sentence motions after 

revocation)]; (3) whether appellant’s brief [contains a concise 

statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal pursuant 

to] 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.

Baker, 311 A.3d at 18 (citation and brackets omitted).

Lofton filed a timely notice of appeal. Lofton did not, however, properly 

preserve the issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. See 

Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 289 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating 

that “when a court revokes probation and imposes a new sentence, a criminal 
J-A15027-24

- 4 -

defendant needs to preserve challenges to the discretionary aspects of that 

new sentence either by objecting during the revocation sentencing or by filing 

a post-sentence motion”). His claim is therefore waived. See id.1

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/12/2024

____________________________________________

1 Even if Lofton did not waive his claim, we would conclude that the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the probation revocation sentence. 

Here, the trial court imposed a sentence of total confinement after considering 

the updated pre-sentence investigation report, the victim impact statement, 

Lofton’s multiple failures to complete supervision, his substance abuse 

problems, concluding that parole and probation were ineffective in 

rehabilitating Lofton. See N.T., 12/5/2023, at 6-8. When a sentencing court 

is informed by a pre-sentence investigation report, “it is presumed that the 

court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and 

that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be 

disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(citation omitted).