J-S58026-15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

HARVEY L. MATTHEWS, JR.,

Appellant No. 531 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of December 2, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0001241-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 05, 2015

Appellant, Harvey L. Matthews, Jr., appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered on December 2, 2014, following his guilty pleas to simple 

assault, disorderly conduct, and harassment.1 We affirm.

We summarize the factual and procedural history of this case as 

follows. On October 27, 2014, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to the 

aforementioned offenses following an incident in which he was observed 

slamming his paramour’s head onto the pavement. On December 2, 2014, 

the trial court sentenced Appellant to one to two years in state prison for 

simple assault and six to 12 months in state prison for disorderly conduct. 

Appellant received a fine for his harassment conviction. In addition, the trial 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1), 5503(a)(1), and 2709(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S58026-15

- 2 -

court ordered a mental health evaluation and directed that any resulting 

recommended treatment be completed in prison. It further ordered no 

drugs, no alcohol, and the completion of a domestic violence intervention 

program and counseling.

On December 12, 2014, Appellant filed a pro se motion to reconsider 

his sentence, seeking the imposition of concurrent punishments. On January 

28, 2015, newly appointed counsel filed an amended motion to reconsider 

sentence. The Commonwealth filed an answer to Appellant’s motion on 

February 9, 2015 and the court denied relief on February 20, 2015. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 20, 2015. On March 

23, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant 

complied timely on April 10, 2015. The trial court issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on April 21, 2015.

On appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review: 

Whether the imposition of an aggregate sentence of [18 to 

36] months['] incarceration was excessive given [Appellant’s 

circumstances]?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

“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.” Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 

1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Appellant does not have an 
J-S58026-15

- 3 -

automatic right to appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Instead, Appellant must petition this Court for 

permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id.

As this Court has explained:

To reach 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, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 

903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at 

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P. [708]; (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. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2007). As previously 

noted, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Moreover, the issue 

Appellant presents on appeal was properly preserved in counsel’s amended 

post-sentence motion. Appellant’s brief also has a statement pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Thus, we turn to whether the appeal presents a 

substantial question. 

As we have explained: 

The determination of whether a particular case raises a 

substantial question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Generally, however, in order to establish that there 

is a substantial question, the appellant must show actions 

by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing 

Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the 

sentencing process.

Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608, 612 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal 

citations omitted).
J-S58026-15

- 4 -

Appellant's position is that he has raised a substantial question since 

the imposition of an aggregate sentence of 18 to 36 months’ incarceration 

(predicated upon the consecutive punishments ordered by the trial court) is 

excessive given his particular circumstances, including his rehabilitative 

needs. See Appellant’s Brief at 7. We have determined, in limited 

circumstances, that similar claims raise a substantial question. See

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“To 

make it clear, a defendant may raise a substantial question where he 

receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case 

involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be 

clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald 

claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not 

raise a substantial question.”); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 

A.2d 162, 171–172 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“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.”). Assuming, without deciding, that Appellant raises a 

substantial question, we are confident that Appellant is not entitled to relief 

on the substantive merit of his discretionary sentencing claims.

In sentencing Appellant, the trial court was required to “consider the 

general principles and standards of the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth 
J-S58026-15

- 5 -

v. Russell, 460 A.2d 316, 322 (Pa. Super. 1983). Section 9721 expresses 

these general principles in the following manner:

the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is 

consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of 

the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the 

victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs 

of the defendant.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

In this case, the trial court specifically examined the factors under 

Section 9721 and fashioned an individualized sentence according to its 

findings. The court determined that Appellant presented a danger to the 

community because of his lengthy criminal history, which includes multiple 

prior assaults upon women. It was also established at Appellant’s 

sentencing hearing that the present assault occurred while Appellant was 

under supervision for a prior instance of domestic violence. In addition, the 

court ordered mental health evaluations and treatment to address 

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs and observed that state prison officials could 

monitor and address Appellant’s medical issues. Lastly, while the court 

determined that Appellant’s desires to care for his aging mother and to 

attend his daughter’s graduation were admirable, his criminal history and 

the risk he posed to society outweighed his pledges to be a better son and 

father. These determinations find ample support in the certified record and 

we discern no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion in imposing Appellant’s consecutive sentences. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S58026-15

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/5/2015