J-S38008-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ALISON K. HILL

Appellant No. 2137 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered on November 20, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-50-CR-0000428-2008

BEFORE: WECHT, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2015

Allison K. Hill appeals the judgement of sentence that was entered on 

November 20, 2014, following revocation of her probationary sentence for 

two counts of forgery,1and after being re-sentenced to two to five years’ 

imprisonment on each count, with both sentences running concurrent with 

each other. We affirm. 

The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history 

of this case as follows:

On July 15, 2009, [Hill] entered a guilty plea to two (2) counts of 

Forgery, Felonies of the Third Degree, in violation of Title 18 

§ 4101(a)(2). The [c]ourt sentenced [Hill] to five (5) years of 

probation with the Perry County Probation Department. [Hill] 

was further ordered at that time to submit to a Drug and Alcohol 

Evaluation and to follow all recommendations resulting from that 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101(a)(2).
J-S38008-15

- 2 -

evaluation. On that same date, [Hill] [] entered a guilty plea in 

another case docketed at CR 185 of 2009, to one (1) count of 

Criminal Attempt, Access Device Fraud, a Felony of the Third 

Degree, in violation of Title 18 § 901(a) and § 4106. The [c]ourt 

sentenced [Hill] in that case to two (2) years Probation. 

On June 12, 2012, Perry County Probation issued a detainer 

after [Hill] received new charges in Cumberland County. On 

March 20, 2013, the [c]ourt re-sentenced [Hill] to the State 

Intermediate Punishment Program (“SIP”) under docket CR 185 

of 2009. On December 30, 2013, [Hill] was expelled from the 

Program after she signed out of her outpatient treatment center, 

Promise Place, and failed to return. As a result, the [c]ourt held 

a SIP revocation hearing and on July 28, 2014, re-sentenced 

[Hill] to nine (9) to twenty-three (23) months incarceration 

under docket CR 185 of 2009. Due to [Hill’s] incarceration since 

December 2013, [Hill] was released on July 28, 2014. On 

November 4, 2014, another detainer was issued after [Hill] 

admitted to drug usage and failed to appear for appointments 

with her Probation Officer. 

* * *

In this case, on July 15, 2009, [Hill] signed the Rules and 

Regulations and Conditions Governing Adult Probation as 

witnessed by her Probation Officer, Michelle Orris. The Gagnon 

II[

2

] Petition, filed November 19, 2014, indicates that [Hill] 

violated No. 4 of these Rules and Regulations, requiring that she 

not indulge in the use, sale, or distribution of narcotics o[r] 

drugs of any form. On September 15, 2014, [Hill] admitted that 

she was using drugs to her Supervising Probation Officer in 

Cumberland County. [Hill] indicated that for the past month she 

was using 1-2 heroin bags a day. [Hill] further admitted to her 

Probation Officer in Dauphin County that she had been using 25-

30 bags since August of 2014. At the Violation Hearing on 

November 20, 2014, [Hill’s] Probation Officer, Michelle Orris also 

indicated that these admissions were only one month after 

[Hill’s] release from her previous re-sentence. Finally, when 

[Hill] was detained by Perry County Probation on November 4, 

2014, her drug test was positive for 753 [ng]/ml of heroin, as 

well as 75 [ng]/ml Buprennorphine. 

____________________________________________

2 See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).
J-S38008-15

- 3 -

The Gagnon II Petition further averred that [Hill] also violated 

No. 1 of the Rules, Regulations and Conditions of Probation 

requiring that she report to her Probation Officer when directed 

and that she be available for visits any time or any place. [Hill’s] 

Cumberland County Probation Officer informed Perry County 

Probation that she was unable to locate [Hill] after directing that 

she enter drug treatment on September 15, 2014. Probation 

Officer Janette Medvidovich made several attempts to contact 

[Hill] to no avail. While Officer Medvidovich was able to speak 

with [Hill’s] mother on two occasions and informed her that [Hill] 

must report to Perry County Probation, [Hill] still refused to 

contact the Office. [Hill] was not located until she appeared for 

an appointment with Dauphin County Probation on November 4, 

2014. 

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), 2/26/2015, pages 1, 3, and 4 (unpaginated). 

Because of this, Hill was found to have violated the terms and conditions of 

her probationary sentence on November 20, 2014. Her probationary 

sentence was revoked by the trial court and she was re-sentenced to two to 

five years of incarceration in a state correctional institution. The court 

ordered this sentence to run concurrently with the sentence at CR 185 of 

2009. Hill received credit for time served from November 4, 2014. Hill did 

not file a post-sentence motion. 

Hill filed a timely notice of appeal. By order dated December 22, 

2014, the trial court directed that she file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On January 19, 

2015, Hill filed her concise statement, alleging that the trial court abused its 

discretion in re-sentencing Hill to a prison term, rather than providing her 

with the opportunity to receive drug rehabilitation or to serve her sentence 

in local jail. Brief for Hill at 21. Additionally, she avers that, because her 
J-S38008-15

- 4 -

probation violations are less egregious than receiving new charges, her new 

sentence was harsh and excessive. Id. at 22. 

Hill raises the following issue for our consideration: 

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in re-sentencing the 

defendant to an incarcerative state correctional institution 

sentence of minimum two (2) years, maximum five (5) years 

on two counts of Forgery, Felonies of the Third Degree? 

Brief for Hill at 7. 

Our standard for reviewing the discretionary aspects of a sentence is 

as follows: 

In general, the imposition of sentence following the revocation of 

probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, 

which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed 

on appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2013). Hill 

argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a high-end 

standard range sentence in a state prison. By imposing such a sentence, Hill 

cannot receive local drug treatment rehabilitation. According to Hill, the 

result was an excessive sentence, in light of the fact that the violations of 

the terms of her probation were technical in nature, such as not checking in 

with her probation officer, and are not based upon new charges. Therefore, 

she argues that the result was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Brief for 

Hill at 18. 

Hill’s argument challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence. 

Hill is not entitled as of right to a review of such challenge. Before we have 
J-S38008-15

- 5 -

jurisdiction over such a claim, an appellant must satisfy the following 

protocol: 

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. § 9781(b). 

Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 467 (Pa. Super. 2013). Hill has 

filed a timely notice of appeal and has included in her brief a Rule 2119(f) 

statement. However, Hill did not preserve her discretionary aspects of 

sentence challenges, either at her re-sentencing or in a post-sentence 

motion. 

The sentencing judge explained to Hill that she had ten days from 

November 20, 2014, to file any post-sentence motions. Notes of Testimony 

(“N.T.”), 11/20/2014, at 13. At the resentencing hearing, Hill did not raise 

the argument that she now presents to this Court. Nor did she file a postsentence motion raising the issue. Consequently, Hill has waived her 

challenges to the discretionary aspects of her sentence, and thus has failed 

to invoke our jurisdiction over such claims. See Commonwealth v. 

McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2004). (“Issues challenging the 

discretionary aspects of sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion 

or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing 

proceedings.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are 
J-S38008-15

- 6 -

waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Consequently, 

we will not review the merits of Hill’s claim. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/20/2015