J-S28005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN ECKERT, III 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1359 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 13, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0001196-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 20, 2023

John Eckert, III appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his open guilty plea to ten counts of possession of child pornography.

On appeal, Eckert challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence, 

specifically, that his sentences were imposed to run consecutively to each 

other. After careful review, we affirm.

In 2021, Eckert was charged with thirty-five counts of possession of 

child pornography and five counts of criminal use of a communication facility. 

Eckert pleaded guilty to ten counts of possession of child pornography graded 

as a second-degree felony and the remaining charges were dismissed. On 

October 13, 2022, Eckert was sentenced to one to four years’ incarceration on 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28005-23

- 2 -

each of the ten charges with the sentences on counts one through four to run 

consecutively to each other and the remaining sentences to run concurrently. 

Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we must consider whether 

the appeal is timely filed. See Pa.R.A.P. 105(b). Eckert filed a notice of appeal 

to this Court on November 22, 2022. Eckert noted he was appealing from the 

sentence of October 13, 2022, and the denial of reconsideration of sentence 

of October 25, 2022. See Notice of Appeal. The trial court docket does not 

reflect a motion for reconsideration of sentence was ever filed however it does 

indicate that one was denied on October 25, 2022. See Docket, at 16. The 

trial court indicates that argument was heard on Eckert’s post-sentence 

motion on the same day the order denying the motion was entered. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 1/10/23 at 2. 

This Court issued a rule to show cause directing Eckert to address why 

the appeal should not be quashed as untimely as there is no motion for 

reconsideration in the record. See Order, 1/20/23. Eckert’s counsel, newly 

appointed on appeal, noted that the post-sentence motions were denied on 

October 25, and the deadline for appeal was thirty days beyond that date. 

See Response to Rule to Show Cause, 1/25/23. The issue was deferred to this 

panel for analysis.

We note that post-sentence motions must be filed within ten days of the 

imposition of sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1). If a post-sentence 

motion is filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the 

resolution of the motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2). 
J-S28005-23

- 3 -

Here, new counsel entered his appearance on behalf of Eckert on

November 8, 2022. Counsel relied on the docket entry indicating that postsentence motions were denied on October 25, 2022, and filed a notice of 

appeal within 30 days of that date. Rather than remand to the trial court to 

clarify what happened, we conclude that, at the very least, a breakdown in 

court operations occurred. Under these circumstances, counsel was entitled 

to rely on the official docket entries which indicated that timely post-sentence 

motions had been explicitly denied. As such, we will address the merits of the 

appeal. 

Eckert raises one claim on appeal, challenging the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 21. Eckert has no absolute right to 

challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. 

Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005). He is required to make a statement 

in his brief of the reasons we should allow an appeal of the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence. See id. He must also show that a substantial question 

exists as to whether the sentence complies with the Sentencing Code. See id. 

Eckert has complied with these requirements. He included his statement 

for reasons to allow an appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing in his brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See Appellant’s Brief, at 

32-33. Eckert claims that the consecutive nature of his sentence is 

unreasonable as the aggregate sentence is excessive given the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding his crimes. See id. at 39. This claim constitutes a 

substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273
J-S28005-23

- 4 -

(Pa. Super. 2013). We therefore turn to the merits of Eckert’s sentencing 

claim. 

The details of a sentence are left to the discretion of the sentencing 

judge, and we will only disturb them if we find an abuse of discretion. See 

Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr., 932 A.2d 155, 163 (Pa. Super. 2007). When 

reviewing a sentence, we will vacate when we find the sentencing guidelines 

were applied incorrectly, adhering to the sentencing guidelines is 

unreasonable for the case, or a sentence outside the guidelines is 

unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 

2012). When fashioning a sentence, a trial court must consider the character 

of the defendant and the specific circumstances of the offenses which includes 

considering prior record score, age, and rehabilitative potential. See 

Commonwealth v. Bowens, 265 A.3d 730, 764 (Pa. Super. 2021). 

The basis of Eckert’s argument is that the trial court did not articulate 

reasons on the record why Eckert’s sentences were ordered to run 

consecutively, implying that his crimes were worse than similar crimes 

committed by similarly situated defendants. See Appellant’s Brief at 49. 

Eckert does not provide any citations to cases where defendants charged and 

convicted with similar crimes were given concurrent sentences. A presentence investigation was conducted and Eckert submitted a sentencing 

memorandum including many character references. At sentencing Eckert’s 

daughters and wife spoke on his behalf, and Eckert spoke in allocution. See

N.T., 10/13/22 at 3, 9-22. Further, Eckert’s counsel provided a recitation of 
J-S28005-23

- 5 -

his rehabilitative attempts since his arrest. See id. at 23-29. The 

Commonwealth argued at sentencing that the decision to withdraw 30 charges 

against Eckert in exchange for his guilty plea was, in itself, consideration for 

Eckert acknowledging his responsibility. See id. at 30-31. The trial court 

stated that the maximum sentence for each of the ten counts was five to ten 

years’ incarceration. See id. at 35. The trial court considered this information 

along with the contents of the criminal complaint in fashioning a guideline 

sentence. See id. at 36.

Eckert complains the record lacks specific reasons for his sentence. See 

Appellant’s Brief at 51. In fact, it is well established that the sentencing court 

can meet its requirement to state the reasons for sentence simply by 

indicating that it has considered the pre-sentence report. See 

Commonwealth v. Goodco Mechanical, Inc., 291 A.3d 378, 407 (Pa. 

Super. 2023). The mere fact that the sentencing judge reviewed a presentence report creates a presumption that the sentencing judge meaningfully 

weighed the sentencing factors and we will not find an abuse of discretion. 

See id. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, and the court’s review 

of the PSI, we find no abuse of discretion in the consecutive nature of the

sentence imposed.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S28005-23

- 6 -

DATE: 11/20/2023