J-S43027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 679 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005974-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1081 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003824-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1082 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001822-2021
J-S43027-23

- 2 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1083 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001990-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ISRAEL E. SANABRIA, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1084 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 14, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003289-2022

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: JANUARY 31, 2024

Appellant, Israel E. Sanabria, Jr., appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, following 

his jury trial convictions for aggravated assault and false identification to law 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S43027-23

- 3 -

enforcement,1 and open guilty pleas to various other offenses. We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On 

April 14, 2023, Appellant appeared before the court for a guilty 

plea/sentencing hearing on four trial court dockets, and for sentencing on a 

fifth docket, following his jury trial convictions. Specifically, Appellant entered 

an open guilty plea at docket No. 5974-2019, to driving under the influence 

of alcohol or a controlled substance (“DUI”), driving under a suspended license

(“DUS”), and restrictions on alcoholic beverages. The court sentenced him to 

72 hours to six months’ imprisonment for DUI, a consecutive 6-12 months’ 

imprisonment for DUS, and fines and costs for restrictions on alcoholic 

beverages. At docket No. 3824-2020, Appellant pled guilty to fleeing or

eluding a police officer, multiple counts of DUI, DUS, possession of a small 

amount of marijuana, careless driving, and other traffic violations. The court 

sentenced Appellant to 9-23 months’ imprisonment for fleeing or eluding, a 

consecutive 90 days to 12 months’ imprisonment for DUI (with the remaining 

DUI offenses merging for sentencing), and fines and costs for the remaining 

offenses at this docket. 

At docket No. 1990-2021, Appellant pled guilty to DUS. The court 

sentenced Appellant to 6-12 months’ imprisonment. At docket No. 3289-

2022, Appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1) and 4914(a). 
J-S43027-23

- 4 -

(methamphetamine) and DUS. The court sentenced Appellant to 3-12 

months’ imprisonment for the possession conviction and a consecutive 6-12 

months’ imprisonment for the DUS conviction. The court ran all sentences for 

each docket concerning the open guilty pleas consecutive to one another. 

At docket No. 1822-2021, concerning Appellant’s jury trial convictions, 

the court explained: 

For purposes of determining the sentence for the 

aggravated assault conviction, the [c]ourt determined that 

serious bodily injury was inflicted on the victim, namely 

breaking the facial bones in the cranium of the victim, which 

increased the offense gravity score (“OGS”). The [c]ourt 

considered the arguments of counsel, the pre-sentence 

investigation [(“PSI”)], prior protection from abuse actions 

filed against [Appellant], a letter from the victim, portions 

of which were read aloud to the [c]ourt by the Assistant 

District Attorney, [Appellant’s] letters sent to the [c]ourt 

and [Appellant’s] remarks.

The [c]ourt sentenced [Appellant] to [71⁄2] years to 15 years 

in state prison for the aggravated assault charge. For the 

false identification to law enforcement charge, [Appellant] 

received a sentence of 4 months to one year consecutive to 

the other count. The sentences were to be consecutive to 

all the other informations[, consistent with the 

Commonwealth’s request at sentencing]. 

The evidence at trial graphically depicted [Appellant’s] 

assault on the victim, his girlfriend. The Commonwealth 

presented a surveillance video which was obtained from the 

motel where [Appellant] and victim were staying. The 

surveillance camera was located in the hallway where the 

elevator was located.

The video began with the victim running down the hallway 

with no shoes and no coat. She got into the elevator but 

[Appellant] came after her and got into the elevator. He 

could be heard slamming her against the elevator wall. The 

video then showed [Appellant] dragging the victim out of 
J-S43027-23

- 5 -

the elevator by her hair. He threw her on the ground after 

he had calmly counted down from five before doing so. 

While she was on the ground, [Appellant] again calmly 

counted down from five while telling her to get up or he 

would kill her. He is then seen winding a lanyard attached 

to [a] satchel, which was full of coins, around his wrist and 

then swinging the satchel into the victim’s face as she tried 

to get up. As he struck the victim, coins were strewn 

throughout the lobby. [Appellant] counted down from five 

again and as [victim] finally got up and walked down the 

hallway with [Appellant], he could be heard saying, “see 

what you did.”

The victim suffered fractures to her orbital bone and 

maxillary sinus. Her left ear was also re-injured from when 

she had presented at the emergency room early in the 

morning the previous day claiming she had fallen on ice. 

The victim testified at trial, however, that the initial ear 

injury was actually caused by [Appellant] and she lied about 

falling on ice.

[Appellant] testified that he...thought he was helping the 

victim to keep her from doing drugs and to keep her from 

humiliating herself. He claimed he hit her in the face with 

the bag of coins to get her attention. He further testified 

that the victim had a childish mind. On cross examination, 

[Appellant] denied that he caused the victim’s injuries. He 

did admit that they had cocaine. Throughout his testimony 

he showed no remorse and he disparaged and blamed the 

victim.

On April 21, 2023, [Appellant] filed a Post-Sentence Motion 

to Modify Sentence which the [c]ourt denied on April 2[5], 

2023. On May 3, 2023, [Appellant] filed his Notice of 

Appeal.[2] On June 9, 2023, [Appellant] filed his Statement 

of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal. 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant filed a single notice of appeal listing all five underlying docket 

numbers, in violation of Commonwealth v. Walker, 646 Pa. 456, 185 A.3d 

969 (2018). This Court subsequently directed Appellant to file amended 

notices of appeal at each underlying docket number, and Appellant complied. 

Thereafter, Appellant moved to consolidate the appeals, and this Court 

granted the consolidation request on August 14, 2023. 
J-S43027-23

- 6 -

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/6/23, at 3-5) (internal citations and footnotes 

omitted).

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

Did the sentencing court err by imposing consecutive 

sentences on criminal charges filed under informations 

5974-19, 3824-20, 1990-21 and 3289-22 solely because 

[A]ppellant failed to accept responsibility for his behavior on 

unrelated criminal charges filed under information 1822-21?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

Appellant argues that the court imposed consecutive sentences at all 

dockets solely because Appellant failed to accept responsibility regarding his 

jury trial convictions. Appellant asserts that at the sentencing hearing, he 

spoke exclusively about his relationship with the victim concerning those 

offenses. Appellant contends that he said nothing regarding the offenses to 

which he pled guilty. After Appellant spoke, Appellant emphasizes that the 

court expressly stated that it was imposing consecutive sentences at all 

dockets based on Appellant’s lack of accountability for his behavior concerning 

the jury trial offenses. Appellant highlights the court’s comment that had 

Appellant said nothing at all, the court would not have imposed consecutive 

sentences. Appellant submits that he accepted responsibility for his actions 

at the other criminal dockets to which he pled guilty. Appellant insists that 

the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on the dockets to which he 

pled guilty is not logically connected to Appellant’s “poorly chosen in-court 

comments” regarding the jury trial convictions. (Id. at 12). Appellant 
J-S43027-23

- 7 -

acknowledges that the court imposed an aggregate term of 71⁄2 to 15 years’ 

imprisonment for his jury trial offenses. Appellant challenges the court’s 

imposition of consecutive sentences for the crimes to which he pled guilty 

because those crimes are not logically related to Appellant’s jury trial 

convictions or Appellant’s in-court comments regarding the jury trial 

convictions. Appellant concludes the court abused its sentencing discretion, 

and this Court must vacate and remand for a new sentencing hearing. We 

disagree. 

A challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing is not 

automatically reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Hunter, 

768 A.2d 1136 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 695, 796 A.2d 979 

(2001). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue:

We 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.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (internal citations omitted). 

When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant 

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise 

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of 
J-S43027-23

- 8 -

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The determination of what 

constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” 

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2003). “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.” Commonwealth 

v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)). 

Additionally:

Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to 

impose [a] 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 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.

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

denied, 621 Pa. 692, 77 A.3d 1258 (2013) (emphasis added) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hoag, 

665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa.Super. 1995) (stating appellant is not entitled to 

“volume discount” for his crimes by having all sentences run concurrently).
J-S43027-23

- 9 -

Assuming an appellant can invoke our jurisdiction to review the claim, 

this Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the following 

standard:

Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on 

appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of 

discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on 

appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its 

discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment 

exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 

partiality, bias or ill-will. 

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)). 

The rationale behind such broad discretion and the 

concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is 

that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine 

the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an 

evaluation of the individual circumstances before it. 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. 

Commonwealth v. Walls, 592 Pa. 557, 564-65, 926 A.2d 957, 961-62 

(2007) (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted). 

“[A] court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the 

offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 
J-S43027-23

- 10 -

A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148, 125 S. Ct. 2984, 

162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005). “In particular, the court should refer to the 

defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his 

potential for rehabilitation.” Id. If the sentencing court has the benefit of a 

PSI report, the law presumes the court was aware of the relevant information 

regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along 

with any mitigating factors. Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 

(Pa.Super. 2005).

Instantly, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and preserved his 

sentencing challenge in a post-sentence motion and Rule 2119(f) statement. 

See Evans, supra. Although Appellant relies on Austin, supra to support 

his assertion of a substantial question, we agree with the Commonwealth that 

Appellant has failed to raise a substantial question warranting our review. As 

Austin makes clear, any challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences

raises a substantial question only in the “most extreme circumstances, such 

as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of 

the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” See Austin, supra at 808. 

Here, the court imposed an aggregate term of approximately 10 years and 

seven months’ imprisonment to 23 years and five months’ imprisonment. We 

cannot say the court’s aggregate sentence for the multitude of Appellant’s 

crimes across all five underlying dockets was unduly harsh here. See id.

Even if Appellant raised a substantial question for our review, however, 
J-S43027-23

- 11 -

he would not be entitled to sentencing relief. The trial court addressed 

Appellant’s issue as follows:

...[Appellant’s] character was fully brought to light through 

his allocution. He demonstrated that he is completely 

without remorse and feels justified beating a woman 

because the woman was bad and brought it on [herself].

Despite the advice of his legal counsel to be brief, 

[Appellant] spoke for half an hour as was noted by the 

[c]ourt. Throughout the entire thirty minutes, [Appellant] 

denigrated the victim. Some of what he said included claims 

that the victim was prostituting, drug trafficking, setting 

people up to be robbed. [Appellant] stated that the victim 

was homeless by choice and injected $250 to $500 of drugs 

a day. [Appellant] further claimed that the victim stole 

thousands and thousands of dollars from him and he had 

suffered in a lot of ways. He also claimed that he did not 

cause her major injuries.

At the conclusion of his allocution, the [c]ourt stated:

One of the first things you said was my attorney 

doesn’t want me to say much. And, again, had you 

listened to counsel today, you may have done better. 

Had you stood up and said you had nothing to say, 

you likely would have done better today had you 

followed his good advice. 

But instead you decided to, once again, for reasons 

that make no sense to this [c]ourt, throw [the victim]

under the bus. And for reasons that make no sense 

to this [c]ourt tried to deny the fact that you struck a 

helpless woman on her knees in the face with a 

weapon. How you can possibly stand before this 

[c]ourt and look at me straight faced and say you 

ought not to be held accountable for striking the 

woman in the head and breaking her facial bones, it’s 

shocking to this [c]ourt that you could take that 

position.

And as a result of that, the sentence I’m about to 

impose will run consecutively to the others. And, 
J-S43027-23

- 12 -

again, I want to be clear, you did that to yourself this 

very day. Because that wasn’t going to happen except 

to see someone so lacking in remorse for such 

outrageous and horrible conduct to a woman, a 

helpless woman in our society. 

To which [Appellant] replied, “she’s not helpless.”

The [c]ourt went on to observe that [Appellant] is 43 years 

of age and completed 12 years of ... school and received a 

high school diploma. He has incredibly poor work history 

only having worked productively for two years in his 43 

years. The [c]ourt further noted that [Appellant] has a prior 

record that included felony stalking, harassment, threat to 

use weapon of mass destruction, and numerous indirect 

criminal contempts from violating five different PFAs where 

[Appellant] violently attacked numerous women.

The presentence report was considered as well as the 

sentencing guidelines including the enhanced guideline for 

the serious bodily injury that the victim suffered. The 

[c]ourt emphasized the sheer lack of remorse that 

[Appellant] continued to fail to show and his continued 

manipulation of the victim. Based on this, the [c]ourt 

ordered that the sentences imposed on the two counts were 

to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the 

other criminal informations.

All of the sentences imposed were within the standard 

guideline range. The [c]ourt carefully considered all of the 

statutory factors and fashioned an individualized sentence. 

Based upon [Appellant’s] own words as well as his presentence investigation, it was evident that [Appellant’s] past 

mental health treatment has not helped [Appellant] 

recognize his culpability for his own behavior. Because of 

his utter remorselessness and lack of insight, [Appellant] 

poses a threat to society and particularly women when he is 

not incarcerated.

In his Post-Sentence Motion, [Appellant] contends that 

running the unrelated “driving charges” and the assault 

conviction consecutive to one another “unfairly punishes 

him for charges that were unrelated to one another.” The 

[c]ourt, however, is not required to impose the minimum 
J-S43027-23

- 13 -

possible confinement. ... As has been often stated, there is 

no “volume discount” on multiple convictions by the 

imposition of concurrent sentences. 

(Trial Court Opinion at 7-9) (internal citations and footnote omitted). 

At the outset, we observe that the court imposed consecutive sentences 

for each of Appellant’s open guilty plea dockets before Appellant spoke at 

sentencing regarding the jury trial offenses. Thus, Appellant’s remarks at 

sentencing compelled the court to impose the sentences for the jury trial 

convictions consecutive to the previously-imposed consecutive sentences for 

the open guilty pleas. To the extent Appellant suggests that the court only 

imposed consecutive sentences across the open guilty plea dockets based on 

Appellant’s remarks, the record belies that claim. 

Further, the record supports the court’s statements that Appellant 

demonstrated a complete lack of remorse concerning his actions against the 

victim of his aggravated assault conviction. It is of no moment that Appellant’s 

comments at sentencing related only to the jury trial convictions and not the 

offenses to which Appellant pled guilty. Appellant’s comments made clear to 

the court that a lengthier sentence of incarceration was necessary to protect 

the public. (See N.T. Sentencing, 4/14/23, at 63) (court indicates that

Appellant is “a woman beater” and “someone that our society must be 

protected from” and “a lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness of 

the crime”). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) (providing court shall consider 

when sentencing protection of public, gravity of offense as it relates to impact 
J-S43027-23

- 14 -

of victim and on community, and rehabilitative needs of defendant). The court 

also had the benefit of a PSI report, so we can presume the court considered 

all relevant factors. See Tirado, supra. On this record, we cannot say that 

the court abused its broad sentencing discretion. See Walls, supra; 

McNabb, supra. Therefore, even if Appellant had preserved his sentencing 

claim, it would merit no relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/31/2024