J-S14038-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CHRISTOPHER PATRICK O'CONNOR 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1119 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 5, 2023

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

No(s): CP-40-CR-0002387-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: JUNE 10, 2024

Christopher Patrick O’Connor (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered following his open guilty plea to 50 counts each of 

possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.1 

Additionally, Appellant’s counsel (Counsel) has filed an application to withdraw 

and accompanying brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). 

We grant Counsel’s application to withdraw and affirm the judgment of 

sentence.

During Appellant’s guilty plea hearing, the Commonwealth offered the 

following factual summary:

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(c), (d).
J-S14038-24

- 2 -

On or about March 29[], 2022, Detective [Charles] Balogh,2 a 

member of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force[,] 

received a cyber tip from the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, which is generated by Google.

According to the Google records ... [Appellant] ... had up 

loaded [sic] 65 images of suspected child sex abuse material.

In reviewing the cyber tip, Detective Balogh was able to 

determine that a number of the images depicted prepubescent [] 

girls and boys engaged in sexual acts. The images were uploaded 

on February 12[], 2022.

A search warrant was executed at 605 Barrys Lane, White 

Haven, Luzerne County, where [Appellant] was staying. A search 

of [Appellant’s] electronics that were seized showed images of 

child sex abuse material. They were located and some of those 

images matched the aforementioned cyber tips.

In speaking with [] Detective [Balogh], [Appellant] admitted 

to using RandoChat, an application on his phone where he would 

chat with other individuals and exchange images of child sex 

abuse material.

N.T., 12/12/22, at 4-5 (footnote added).

On December 12, 2022, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to 50 

counts each of the above-stated offenses. In exchange, the Commonwealth 

withdrew four charges of criminal use of a communication facility. Appellant 

also agreed that he would be subject to 25 years of sexual offender 

registration as a Tier II offender under the Sexual Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (SORNA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. The trial court 

____________________________________________

2 The detective’s last name is spelled “Balough” throughout the notes of 

testimony. We have corrected the spelling throughout this quotation based 

on the spelling as provided in the criminal complaint and affidavit of probable 

cause filed by Detective Balogh.
J-S14038-24

- 3 -

directed the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) to assess whether 

Appellant met the criteria for classification as a sexually violent predator

(SVP). The court also ordered preparation of a presentence investigation 

report (PSI). The SOAB subsequently opined Appellant was not an SVP. 

On May 5, 2023, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 7 

to 18 years in prison,3 with credit for time served, followed by 4 years’ 

probation. The court also notified Appellant of his 25-year sex offender 

registration and reporting requirements as a Tier II offender under SORNA.

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion seeking reconsideration of 

his sentence. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on July 

11, 2023. This timely appeal followed. Appellant and the trial court have 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

We address Counsel’s petition to withdraw before considering the issues 

raised in the Anders brief. See Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237, 

240 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“When presented with an Anders brief, this Court 

may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on 

____________________________________________

3 At Counts 1 to 50 (possession), the trial court imposed sentences of 12 to 

24 months in prison, three Counts of which the court directed to run 

consecutive to one another. At Counts 51 to 100 (dissemination), the trial 

court imposed sentences of 12 to 36 months in prison, four of which the trial 

court directed to run consecutive to one another, and consecutive to the 

sentences at Counts 1, 2, and 3. The court ordered all remaining sentences 

to run concurrently.
J-S14038-24

- 4 -

the request to withdraw.” (citation omitted)). Counsel seeking to withdraw 

from representation must

1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after 

making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has 

determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy 

of the brief to the defendant; and 3) advise the defendant that he 

or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional 

arguments that the defendant deems worthy of the court’s 

attention.

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en 

banc). Pursuant to Santiago, counsel must also

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with 

citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that 

counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth 

counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state 

counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. 

Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling 

case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion 

that the appeal is frivolous.

Id. (citing Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361). Once counsel has complied with the 

procedural requirements, we review the record and render an independent 

judgment as to whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Commonwealth 

v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

Instantly, Counsel filed an Anders brief and a separate application to 

withdraw from representation. In his application, Counsel detailed the extent 

of his review of the record and concluded Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. See

Application to Withdraw, 1/14/24. Additionally, Counsel sent a letter to 

Appellant, informed him of his intention to withdraw, and advised Appellant of 

his right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se to raise additional claims. 
J-S14038-24

- 5 -

The record reflects that Counsel furnished Appellant with copies of the 

application to withdraw and the Anders brief. The Anders brief summarizes

the factual and procedural history of this appeal, identifies the sentencing 

issue Appellant wishes to raise, and explains Counsel’s reasons for concluding 

that the appeal is wholly frivolous. As Counsel has satisfied the procedural 

requirements of Anders and Santiago, we review the record to determine 

whether Appellant’s appeal is wholly frivolous.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence,

4

from 

which there is no automatic right to appeal. Commonwealth v. 

Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010). Instead, an appellant 

challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s 

jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

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.

____________________________________________

4 Because the parties did not bargain for a specific sentence when negotiating 

Appellant’s guilty plea, Appellant is not precluded from challenging the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence on appeal. See Commonwealth v. 

Heaster, 171 A.3d 268, 271 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding that appellant 

could challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence after entering a 

“hybrid” guilty plea, i.e., a plea that negotiated a particular aspect of the 

sentence, but did not include a sentencing agreement).
J-S14038-24

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some 

citations omitted).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and preserved this claim in his 

post-sentence motion. The Anders brief also includes a separate Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(f) statement. Additionally, Appellant’s claim that the trial court imposed 

a manifestly excessive sentence, comprised of several consecutive sentences,

without proper consideration of mitigating factors raises a substantial 

question. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 

2015) (en banc) (concluding that a challenge to the imposition of consecutive 

sentences as unduly excessive, together with a claim that the trial court failed 

to consider an appellant’s rehabilitative needs, presents a substantial 

question). We therefore turn to the merits of Appellant’s claim.

Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing several 

consecutive sentences. Anders Brief at 9. Appellant claims the court failed 

to meaningfully consider mitigating factors such as his cooperation with police, 

remorse, and acceptance of responsibility. Id. at 9-10, 12-13. Appellant also 

emphasizes his voluntary participation in drug and alcohol treatment. Id. at 

13.

The standard by which we review a challenge to the discretionary 

aspects of sentence is well settled:

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. In this context, an abuse 

of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, 
J-S14038-24

- 7 -

the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the 

sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its 

judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or 

arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Salter, 290 A.3d 741, 748 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation 

omitted).

“In every case in which the court imposes a sentence for a felony ... the 

court shall make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time 

of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the sentence 

imposed.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b); see also Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 

812 A.2d 617, 620-21 (Pa. 2002) (plurality). The Sentencing Code requires 

the trial court to 

follow the general principle that 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); see also Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 

706, 712 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (stating “the court should refer to the 

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

for rehabilitation.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). The 

trial court must also consider the sentencing guidelines. See id.; see also 

Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating 

that “[w]hen imposing a sentence, the [trial] court is required to consider the 

sentence ranges set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines....”). Moreover, “the 

imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences lies within the 
J-S14038-24

- 8 -

sound discretion of the sentencing court.” Commonwealth v. Redmond, 

273 A.3d 1247, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted).

Instantly, the plea agreement specified the offenses carried an offense 

gravity score of 7. The parties agreed at sentencing that Appellant had a prior 

record score of 0. N.T., 5/5/23, at 6. The sentencing guidelines recommend 

a minimum sentence of 6-14 months in prison for each offense, plus or minus 

6 months for aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 204 Pa. Code § 

303.16(a). Each of Appellant’s sentences included a 12-month minimum 

sentence. Because Appellant’s individual sentences are within the standard 

range of the sentencing guidelines, we presume the sentence is reasonable, 

and we will vacate the sentence only if application of the guidelines is clearly 

unreasonable. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(2) (providing that an appellate 

court may vacate a sentence within the guidelines only if “the case involves 

circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly 

unreasonable”); Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 

2010) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, 

Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing 

Code.” (citation omitted)).

During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel presented a letter from 

a Luzerne County Correctional Facility drug and alcohol therapist, explaining 

Appellant had been voluntarily participating in treatment groups since the 
J-S14038-24

- 9 -

start of his incarceration. N.T., 5/5/23, at 4-5. Appellant also stated that he 

was sorry for his actions. Id. at 5.

Before imposing sentence, the trial court stated it had reviewed the PSI. 

Id. at 7. The court explained its reasons for the sentence as follows:

[T]here are 100 felony counts before the [c]ourt for sentencing. 

Obviously these are very disturbing offenses. They are offenses 

that are victimizing to young children. Obviously [they are]

something for which [Appellant] must be held accountable.

I do note [Appellant has] accepted responsibility by his plea. 

However, he’s in need of obvious rehabilitation and supervision 

and a sentence that will give him a period of time to address any 

drug and alcohol, mental health and other needs that he has, 

which the [c]ourt feels can be served in a state correctional 

institution.

I will impose sentences within the standard range of the 

applicable guidelines and fashion a sentence that will hold 

[Appellant] accountable. I note [Appellant] has a limited criminal 

history. He does have some priors on his record.

However, this [c]ourt simply does not want to diminish the 

serious nature of these offenses by the sentences imposed and 

will hold [Appellant] accountable.

Id. at 7-8.

On review, we conclude Appellant failed to establish circumstances that 

render the trial court’s imposition of consecutive, standard-range sentences 

unreasonable. The record confirms the trial court was aware of and 

considered all relevant sentencing factors in fashioning Appellant’s sentence. 

Moreover, where, as here, the trial court has the benefit of a PSI, “we can 

assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant information regarding the 

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating 
J-S14038-24

- 10 -

statutory factors.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 171. Based upon the foregoing, and 

because we otherwise discern no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing 

discretion, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim.

We also agree with Counsel’s conclusion that Appellant’s appeal is 

frivolous, and our independent review discloses no non-frivolous issues 

Appellant could raise on appeal. Accordingly, we grant Counsel’s application 

to withdraw and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Application to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/10/2024

 
J-S14038-24

- 11 -