J-S07028-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSE GOINES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1307 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 20, 2018

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

No(s): CP-15-CR-0004661-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSE GOINES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1308 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 20, 2018

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

No(s): CP-15-CR-0000070-2017

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSE GOINES

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1309 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 20, 2018

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

No(s): CP-15-CR-0002054-2017
J-S07028-20

- 2 -

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2020

Appellant Jose Goines appeals1from the judgments of sentence 

imposed following his jury trial convictions for burglary, conspiracy, and 

related offenses. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by instructing 

the jury with an erroneous missing witness instruction concerning a 

Commonwealth witness, overruling Appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s 

closing arguments, and denying his post-sentence motion challenging the 

weight of the evidence. Appellant also challenges the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this matter as 

follows:

Over the course of nine days in the fall of 2016, specifically, 

October 28, 2016, November 1, 2016, November 4, 2016[,] and 

November 7, 2016, [Appellant] and co-defendants, Anita Hersh 

and Christopher Hersh, conspired and burglarized four homes in 

Chester County, Pennsylvania[,] and attempted to burglarize a 

fifth home. The fifth burglary was thwarted because the 

homeowner was home that day when [Appellant] kicked in the 

front door of the home. Throughout these burglaries, the modus 

operandi was that co-defendant Anita Hersh drove and acted as 

____________________________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant filed three separate notices of appeal, one for each of the trial 

court docket numbers. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 

2018). On August 19, 2019, Appellant filed an unopposed application for 

consolidation pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2138. This Court granted this 

application via a per curiam order entered on October 4, 2019.
J-S07028-20

- 3 -

the lookout, [Appellant] kicked in the doors, and then 

[Appellant] and co-defendant Christopher Hersh, went into the 

homes, ransacked them, broke things, ripped up important 

documents, and stole anything they believed to be of value. 

Once [Appellant and co-defendants] got away with the 

homeowners’ items, including jewelry and electronics, they then 

travelled together to Wilmington, Delaware to pawn the items 

and split the proceeds.

Trial Ct. Op., 1/10/20, at 3.

Based on these allegations, Appellant was charged with one count of 

attempted burglary and four counts each of burglary, theft by unlawful 

taking, receiving stolen property (RSP), and conspiracy.2, 3 See Docket Nos. 

4661-2016, 70-2017, 2054-2017. On August 28, 2017, the matter 

proceeded to a jury trial.

The trial court summarized the trial evidence as follows:

The Commonwealth presented evidence that each home was 

targeted during the day, around the same time, when it 

appeared like the homeowner was not present. Each home was 

also broken into by the door being broken/kicked in, the home 

ransacked, items belonging to the homeowner taken, and then 

pawned at pawn shops in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Commonwealth also presented an abundance of physical 

evidence as to [Appellant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Specifically, the Commonwealth presented evidence from the 

pawn shops that either Anita Hersh or Christopher Hersh pawned 

____________________________________________

218 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 3502(a)(2), 3921(a), 3925(a), and 903, respectively.

3 Specifically, Appellant was charged with one count of attempted burglary at 

Docket No. 4661-2016; one count each of burglary, theft by unlawful taking, 

RSP, and conspiracy, at Docket No. 70-2016; and three counts each of 

burglary, theft by unlawful taking, RSP, and conspiracy at Docket No. 2054-

2017.
J-S07028-20

- 4 -

the stolen items close in time to each of the burglaries, often on 

the same day. Many of the pawned items were unique to the 

victims in this case. The Commonwealth presented video 

evidence of the co-defendants’ presence in one of the pawn 

shops on two separate occasions when items from the burglaries 

were being pawned.

The record reveals that the Commonwealth also presented 

incriminating shoe print and phone evidence. [Sergeant] Laura 

Klinger of the Pennsylvania State Police laboratory testified that 

[Appellant’s] unique shoes, Nike Air Jordan Retro 88’s, taken 

from his belongings during the execution of a valid search 

warrant, were consistent with the size and characteristics of the 

shoeprints recovered from two of the doors of the burglarized 

homes. Stated differently, when [Appellant’s] shoes were 

compared with the shoe prints taken from the doors, [Sergeant]

Klinger pointed out that there was a high degree of association 

between the two.

The Commonwealth also presented a substantial amount of

phone evidence. Two types of phone evidence were presented: 

GPS data and the forensic download from [Appellant’s] phone, 

which was also seized pursuant to a valid search warrant. The 

GPS location data placed [Appellant] in close proximity to all of 

the burglary locations at the time they were committed and then 

in close proximity to the pawn shops where the stolen items 

were pawned after the burglaries. The forensic download data 

further revealed hundreds of incriminating searches relating to 

the burglaries. . . .

During trial, [Stern,] the homeowner from the attempted 

burglary on November 7, 2016, identified [Appellant] in court as 

the [person] who kicked in his door. During the attempted 

burglary, the victim was able to observe [Appellant] and codefendant, Christopher Hersh, before chasing them off his 

property. While [Appellant] and [Christopher] Hersh were 

fleeing [from] the home, the homeowner was able to get the 

license plate number of the vehicle they were using. It was later 

proven at trial that the vehicle they were using was registered to 

[Christopher] Hersh.

Finally, the cooperating co-defendant, Anita Hersh, testified at 

trial that [Appellant] and Christopher Hersh, planned and 

conspired to commit all five burglaries, broke into the homes, 
J-S07028-20

- 5 -

ransacked them, stole items belonging to the homeowners, and 

proceeded to pawn the stolen items at pawn shops.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6.

On August 31, 2018, the jury convicted Appellant of all charges. The 

trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a pre-sentence 

investigation report (PSI). On November 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate term of nine to twenty years’ incarceration.4 On 

November 30, 2018, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion 

challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence and seeking to reduce 

____________________________________________

4 Specifically, the trial court sentenced Appellant as follows.

At Docket No. 4661-2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to eighteen 

months to three years of incarceration for one count of attempted burglary. 

At Docket No. 2054-2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a 

consecutive term of one to two years’ incarceration for burglary (count one), 

a concurrent term of one to two years’ incarceration for conspiracy (count 

sixteen), and consecutive terms of one to three years’ incarceration for 

burglary (count two), one to two years’ incarceration for conspiracy (count 

seventeen), eighteen months to three years’ incarceration for burglary 

(count three), and one to three years’ incarceration for conspiracy (count 

eighteen).

At Docket No. 70-2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a consecutive 

term of one to two years’ incarceration for burglary (count one) and a 

consecutive term of one to two years’ incarceration for conspiracy (count 

seven). All other charges merged with Appellant’s other convictions. 

Sentencing Order, Docket No. 4661-2016, 11/20/18, at 1; Sentencing 

Order, Docket No. 70-2017, 11/20/18, at 1; Sentencing Order, Docket No. 

2054-2017, 11/20/18, at 1-3.
J-S07028-20

- 6 -

his sentence. Appellant’s post-sentence motion was subsequently denied by 

operation of law on March 30, 2019.5

On April 25, 2019, Appellant filed timely notices of appeal at all three 

docket numbers. Appellant subsequently filed court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statements at each docket number, and the trial court issued a Rule 

1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we have 

reordered as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in not finding the verdicts against the 

weight of the evidence?

____________________________________________

5 Under Rule 720(B)(3), post-sentence motions shall be decided within 120 

days by order or operation of law. Appellant’s post-sentence motion was 

denied by operation of law on March 30, 2019, but the clerk of courts did not 

enter an order to that effect at that time. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B)(3)(a)-

(c). Appellant filed his timely notices of appeal on April 25, 2019. On 

August 22, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause as to why this 

appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory and directed Appellant’s 

counsel to inform this Court when Appellant’s counsel filed a praecipe with 

the trial court for entry of such an order. Appellant’s counsel filed a praecipe 

with the trial court on August 23, 2019, and the clerk of courts entered an 

order that same day reflecting that Appellant’s post-sentence motion was 

denied by operation of law on March 30, 2019. This Court discharged the 

rule to show cause on October 4, 2019, and advised the parties that the 

issue may be revisited by this panel. Order, 10/4/19.

Our review of the record confirms that Appellant timely complied with this 

Court’s order directing him to praecipe the lower court to enter an order 

denying his motion by operation of law. Pa.R.A.P. 301(d). Pursuant to Rule 

905(a)(5), Appellant was not required to file a new notice of appeal. See

Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that initially premature notice of appeal shall be 

treated as filed on the date the appealable order is entered). Accordingly, 

we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
J-S07028-20

- 7 -

2. Did the trial court err in giving a jury instruction with respect 

to witness Nunez who was deemed unavailable by the [trial] 

court?

3. Did the trial court err in not sustaining defense counsel’s 

objection to [the] prosecutor’s statements in closing 

argument that “this is the same shoe,” “this is identical,” and 

“this is completely identical”?

4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it imposed an 

aggregate sentence of nine (9) years to twenty (20) years’ 

confinement [at Docket Nos. 2054-2017, 70-2017, and 4661-

2016]?

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (some formatting altered).

Weight of the Evidence

In his first claim, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying 

his post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the evidence. 

Appellant’s Brief at 28. Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth’s evidence 

“fell short” in terms of establishing that he “was present within the homes 

and committed the particular burglaries.” Id. First, Appellant argues that 

Anita Hersh’s “testimony regarding the particular homes was very weak and 

vague” and “[h]er description of what happened in each home was 

generalized to a degree that made it unbelievable to think that she could 

identify each particular home and say Appellant was inside each of those 

particular homes.” Id. Further, Appellant claims that Anita Hersh’s 

testimony was not credible “due to the bias she had as a cooperating 

witness against Appellant as well as her own personal relationship with the 

third co-defendant, her husband, [Christopher] Hersh.” Id.
J-S07028-20

- 8 -

Second, Appellant challenges the reliability of Stern’s testimony that 

Appellant was one of the individuals who attempted to break into his home. 

Id. at 31. Appellant argues (1) that Stern provided inconsistent descriptions 

of the suspects in the 911 call and at the preliminary hearing, and (2) that 

Stern’s in-court identifications of Appellant “could not be more suggestive.” 

Id.

Finally, Appellant argues that the other evidence at trial was 

inconclusive. Id. Specifically, Appellant contends that (1) the internet 

search history relating to the Wilmington pawn shops could not be attributed 

to Appellant, as his phone “previously belonged to Christopher Hersh,” (2) 

Christopher Hersh was the cell phone subscriber, and (3) “[t]he law 

enforcement witnesses were clear that although the data might show certain 

searches it cannot show who was holding the phone when the searches were 

made.” Id. Appellant further claims that the shoe print evidence was not 

conclusively linked to his shoes. Id. at 32. Therefore, Appellant asserts

that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

The Commonwealth responds that “the jury’s guilty verdicts were not 

against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 23.

When reviewing a weight claim, we are guided by the following 

principles:

A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion 

of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a 

mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same 

facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the 
J-S07028-20

- 9 -

role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the 

facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore 

them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny 

justice. It has often been stated that a new trial should be 

awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as 

to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is 

imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to 

prevail.

An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a 

weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of 

review applied by the trial court:

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the 

exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of 

whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear 

and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will 

give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons 

advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s 

determination that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting 

or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that 

the verdict was or was not against the weight of the 

evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the 

interest of justice.

This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the trial 

court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial based on a 

challenge to the weight of the evidence is unfettered. In 

describing the limits of a trial court’s discretion, we have 

explained:

The term discretion imports the exercise of judgment, 

wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion 

within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for 

the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. 

Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason, 

as opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or 

arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused where the course 

pursued represents not merely an error of judgment, but 

where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where 

the law is not applied or where the record shows that the 

action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
J-S07028-20

- 10 -

Commonwealth v. Soto, 202 A.3d 80, 97 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 207 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2019); see 

also Commonwealth v. Landis, 89 A.3d 694, 699 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(stating that “an appellate court reviews the exercise of the trial court’s 

discretion; it does not answer for itself whether the verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence. It is well settled that the [fact-finder] is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of 

the witnesses . . . .” (citation omitted)). “A true weight of the evidence 

challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but 

questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 

911 A.2d 558, 566 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court explained that

the jury convicted [Appellant] on all charges after considering 

the overwhelming evidence presented by the Commonwealth. 

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury’s verdict 

cannot be said to shock one’s sense of justice in this matter. 

The aforementioned evidence is clearly indicative of [Appellant’s] 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the evidence 

presented at trial was of such volume and quality as to 

overcome the presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury of 

[Appellant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6 (record citations omitted and some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in 

the trial court’s decision to deny relief on Appellant’s weight claim. See 

Landis, 89 A.3d at 699; see also Soto, 202 A.3d at 97. The trial court 

appropriately concluded that the verdict was not so contrary to the evidence 
J-S07028-20

- 11 -

as to require a new trial. See Landis, 89 A.3d at 699. Further, we decline 

to reassess the credibility of the Commonwealth’s witnesses and to reweigh 

the testimony and evidence presented at trial. See id.; see also 

Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(emphasizing that the trier of fact is “free to believe all, part or none of the 

evidence,” and that we will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our 

judgment for that of the fact finder (citation omitted)). Accordingly, 

Appellant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence merits no relief.

Jury Instruction

In his next claim, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by 

granting the Commonwealth’s request for a jury instruction relating to

Nunez, a Commonwealth witness who did not testify at trial. Appellant’s 

Brief at 41-49.

By way of background to this claim, during opening statements, the 

Commonwealth stated that it intended to call Nunez, who had witnessed the 

November 1, 2016 burglary. According to the Commonwealth, Nunez would 

testify that he saw “a heavier male . . . and a skinnier male” getting out of a

Ford Expedition in the driveway of one of the burglarized homes. N.T. Trial, 

8/27/18, at 32. The Commonwealth also stated that Nunez would testify 

that a woman with long hair was driving the Expedition and that Nunez saw 

the two men then quickly leaving the home with items in their hands and get 

back into the Expedition. Id. at 32-33, 41-42. That same day, the 

Commonwealth elicited testimony from Detective Amanda Wenrich that 
J-S07028-20

- 12 -

Nunez had provided her some information about activity that he believed 

was related to one of the burglaries, which had occurred across the street 

from where Nunez worked. Id. at 200, 212. Although Detective Wenrich 

did not testify as to the substance of Nunez’s statement, she noted that it 

corroborated information she obtained during her investigation, which 

included her review of security footage from different pawn shops.

6

 Id. at 

191-200.

On the second day of trial, the Commonwealth informed the trial court 

that Nunez may invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege based on his

immigration status. N.T. Trial, 8/28/18, at 233-38. The Commonwealth 

explained that based on his recent discussion with Nunez, it was 

Commonwealth counsel’s understanding that Nunez might have legal 

challenges concerning his authorization to reside in this country, and that he 

____________________________________________

6 Detective Wenrich testified that her investigation led her to request two 

videos, one from October 29, 2016, and one from November 2, 2019. See 

N.T. Trial, 8/27/18, at 191. There was no indication that either video 

showed the sale of items taken during the November 1, 2016 burglary. 

However, based on her investigations, Detective Wenrich was able to 

identify Anita Hersh from the October 29, 2019, video. Moreover, based on 

her further investigation, she ultimately identified Appellant from the 

October 29, 2019 video and November 2, 2019 video and Christopher Hersh 

from the November 2, 2019 video. Id. at 194-97. The detective noted from 

the November 2, 2019 video that Appellant “is much larger and heavier in 

body type and build, whereas Christopher Hersh is skinnier, smaller.” Id. at 

198. The November 2, 2019 video also showed Appellant and Christopher 

Hersh getting out of the same car, which appeared to have a female driver. 

Id. at 199-200. As noted above, the detective testified that the videos 

“corroborated information that [she] received from witness statements” 

specifically, Nunez. Id. at 200. 
J-S07028-20

- 13 -

could potentially face deportation. Id. at 233-34. The trial court then 

appointed Fifth Amendment counsel for Nunez and deferred ruling on the 

issue until after Nunez had an opportunity to confer with counsel. Id. at 

237-38. 

The next day, the Commonwealth explained to the trial court that 

about two weeks prior to trial, he had spoken with Nunez in preparation for 

trial, and at the end of the interview, Nunez, through an interpreter, asked 

Commonwealth counsel if he [Nunez] had anything to worry about. N.T. 

Trial, 8/29/18, at 627-28. Commonwealth counsel said he assured Nunez 

that the case was not about him and that he would testify at trial and leave. 

Id. Further, the Commonwealth stated that it disclosed to the defense 

about two weeks before trial that Nunez had asked Commonwealth counsel if 

he had anything to worry about if he testified. Id. However, the record is

not clear as to whether Commonwealth counsel informed the defense that 

Nunez could potentially face a legal challenge to his residency in this 

country. 

Ultimately, after hearing from the Commonwealth, Nunez’s counsel, 

and Appellant, the trial court concluded that Nunez was unavailable as a 

witness due to his invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 637-38. In 

response to the trial court’s ruling, the Commonwealth requested a jury 

instruction to explain that Nunez’s unavailability was “due to no fault of the 

parties.” Id. at 637. The trial court deferred ruling on the instruction until 

after the jury instructions charging conference. Id. at 638.
J-S07028-20

- 14 -

Prior to closing arguments, the trial court offered to instruct the jury 

as follows: “a witness Fernando Nunez became unavailable due to a ruling 

by the [trial c]ourt. Do not consider anything concerning that when 

deliberating upon your verdict.” N.T. Trial, 8/30/18, at 807. Appellant 

objected, arguing that the Commonwealth should have anticipated that 

Nunez might invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and that it was not 

entitled to an instruction on that basis. Id. at 807-08. Further, Appellant 

argued that the instruction highlighted the Commonwealth’s references to 

Nunez and that the Commonwealth was essentially benefiting from its own 

mistake. Id. at 808.

Ultimately, the trial court overruled Appellant’s objection and 

instructed the jury as follows:

A witness, Nunez, became unavailable due to a ruling by th[e 

trial c]ourt. Do not consider anything concerning that when 

deliberating upon your verdict. Detective Wenrich of the Kennett 

Square Police Department testified about statements made by

the witness at this trial. They’re not to be considered for their 

truth or in any other way by you in reaching a verdict in this 

case.

N.T. Trial, 8/31/18, at 905.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court misapplied the law by 

instructing the jury about Nunez’s unavailability. Appellant’s Brief at 49. 

Appellant asserts that “the Commonwealth should have been very cognizant 

of the witness’s Fifth Amendment right, raised it pretrial, and avoided

mentioning this witness until the [trial] court had ruled.” Id. at 48. Further, 
J-S07028-20

- 15 -

Appellant contends that the Commonwealth benefited from its own mistake 

because the jury instruction further highlighted the Commonwealth’s 

references to Nunez. Id. at 49. Finally, Appellant argues that “[t]here were 

no facts dictating” a jury instruction relating to Nunez and “the 

Commonwealth should have been held accountable for the prejudice caused 

by its lack of foresight.” Id.

The Commonwealth responds that Appellant “failed to establish that 

this jury instruction was error or that it was prejudicial.” Commonwealth’s 

Brief at 37. Instead, the Commonwealth argues that trial court “correctly 

instructed the jury concerning a witness it deemed unavailable. Moreover, 

[Appellant] suffered no prejudice as a result of the jury instruction.” Id. at 

40.

Our review is governed by the following principles:

We review a challenge to a jury instruction for an abuse of 

discretion or an error of law. We must consider the charge as a 

whole, rather than isolated fragments. We examine the entire 

instruction against the background of all evidence presented, to 

determine whether error was committed. A jury charge is 

erroneous if the charge as a whole is inadequate, unclear, or has 

a tendency to mislead or confuse the jury rather than clarify a 

material issue. Therefore, a charge will be found adequate 

unless the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was 

palpably misled by what the trial judge said. Furthermore, our 

trial courts are invested with broad discretion in crafting jury 

instructions, and such instructions will be upheld so long as they 

clearly and accurately present the law to the jury for its 

consideration.

Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d 530, 540 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations 

omitted and formatting altered).
J-S07028-20

- 16 -

Furthermore, this Court has explained:

If we conclude that the charge was erroneous, we will grant a 

new trial unless we determine the error to be harmless. An error 

can be harmless only if the appellate court is convinced beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the error is harmless. Whenever there is 

a reasonable possibility that an error might have contributed to 

the conviction, the error is not harmless.

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 597 A.2d 690, 694 (Pa. Super. 1991). Here,

the trial court addressed Appellant’s claim as follows:

The instruction was legally permissible and necessary to explain 

to the jury why they would not hear the testimony of an 

important witness despite being told otherwise by the prosecutor 

during opening statements. It is important to keep in mind that 

the jury instruction at issue, when viewed in connection with the 

[trial c]ourt’s series of instructions given throughout the trial, 

explained the missing witness’s testimony.

* * *

If the [trial c]ourt had not given the requested instruction, the 

Commonwealth may have been unfairly prejudiced by the [trial 

c]ourt’s prior ruling. Absent the instruction, the jury would have 

been left to speculate and may have drawn the improper 

inference that the prosecutor chose not to call Nunez because his 

testimony would be adverse to the Commonwealth. Lastly, the 

[trial c]ourt emphasizes that the instruction was the most 

prudent way to handle the issue, so as not to allow defense 

counsel to make a confusing or misleading, missing witness, 

argument. Because [Appellant] has failed to plead and prove 

how the legally permissible instruction resulted in actual 

prejudice, and we can discern none; any error resulting from the 

instruction is clearly harmless.

Trial Ct. Op. at 10-11.

After analyzing the trial court’s jury charge as a whole, we conclude

that the trial court’s jury charge was clear and did not mislead the jury. See 
J-S07028-20

- 17 -

Rush, 162 A.3d at 540. To the extent Appellant argues that the 

Commonwealth was not entitled to an instruction explaining Nunez’s 

absence, we discern no abuse of discretion when the trial instructed the jury 

not to consider the testimony about Nunez’s statement in reaching a verdict. 

Lastly, to the extent Appellant asserts that he was prejudiced because the 

instruction could have highlighted the Commonwealth’s and Detective 

Wenrich’s references to Nunez’s statements, our Supreme Court has stated 

that “[t]he law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of the 

court.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1224 (Pa. 2006) 

(citations omitted). In light of the passing references to Nunez in the 

Commonwealth’s opening statement and Detective Wenrich’s testimony 

during the course of a five-day trial, we discern no basis to conclude that the 

jury could not follow the trial court’s instruction.7 See Spotz, 896 A.2d at 

1224. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim. 

____________________________________________

7 Even if we accepted Appellant’s premise that the instruction highlighted the 

Commonwealth’s and Detective Wenrich’s references to Nunez’s statements, 

we agree with the trial court’s analysis that any error was harmless. 

With respect to the November 1, 2016 burglary, Anita Hersh testified that 

she, Appellant and Christopher Hersh burglarized the home. N.T. Trial, 

8/28/18, at 339-44. Specifically, Anita Hersh testified that she drove to the 

house, and Appellant kicked in the door. Id. at 339-40. Appellant and 

Christopher Hersh went inside the house, while Anita Hersh drove her 

vehicle around until Appellant called her cell phone or sent her a text 

message. Id. at 340-41. When Anita Hersh drove back, Appellant and 

Christopher Hersh came out with items they had taken from the house. Id. 

Anita Hersh’s testimony was corroborated by pawnshop records indicating 

that she sold some of the property taken on November 1, 2016, that same 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S07028-20

- 18 -

Prosecutor’s Closing Argument

In his next claim, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by 

overruling his objection to the Commonwealth’s statements during closing 

(Footnote Continued)_______________________

afternoon, as well as the homeowners’ identifications of their missing 

property sold that day. Id. at 248-49. Additionally, the Commonwealth 

presented cellphone records indicating that Appellant’s phone and Anita 

Hersh’s phone were in the area of the burglarized home at approximately 

10:00 a.m., and that Anita Hersh made calls to both Appellant’s phone and 

Christopher Hersh’s phone between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. N.T. Trial, 

8/30/18, at 715-16, 728-30, 732. Appellant’s phone was also used for 

internet searches for items taken from the home and was near the same 

pawnshop at which Anita Hersh sold some of the items around the time of 

the sale. Id. at 716, 730-31, 785-90. N.T. Trial, 8/28/18, at 341-44. 

The Commonwealth also presented circumstantial evidence supporting Anita 

Hersh’s testimony that Appellant was involved in the other burglaries, 

including expert evidence linking Appellant’s shoes to two other homes, the 

sales of stolen items at pawnshops in Delaware, and internet searches made 

from Appellant’s phone. N.T. Trial, 8/30/18, at 777-96; Commonwealth’s 

Exhibit 106. As discussed above, the Commonwealth presented the videos 

showing Appellant with Anita and Christopher Hersh at various pawnshops. 

N.T. Trial, 8/27/18, at 194-200; N.T. Trial, 8/28/18, at 329-34.

Lastly, the Commonwealth introduced recorded statements that Appellant 

made to Christopher Hersh after a detective interviewed Appellant about the 

burglaries. N.T. Trial, 8/27/18, at 207-08; Commonwealth Ex. 31A. In the

recording, Appellant stated “they know everything” and he would be “doin a 

long time.” Commonwealth Ex. 31A. Appellant also discussed being asked 

about the November 1, 2016 robbery, and told Christopher Hersh that he 

was not able to delete the contents of his cellphone. Id. 

Therefore, in comparison to the evidence that was properly admitted at trial, 

we conclude that any prejudicial effect from an emphasis on Nunez’s 

statement regarding a heavy set male and a skinnier male arriving at, and 

then leaving the scene of the November 1, 2016 burglary was insignificant 

and could not have contributed to the jury’s verdict. See Rivera, 597 A.2d 

at 695.
J-S07028-20

- 19 -

arguments. Appellant’s Brief at 50. Specifically, Appellant refers to the 

Commonwealth’s characterization of the expert testimony of Sergeant 

Klinger.

By way of background to this claim, at trial, Sergeant Klinger testified 

that she examined the Appellant’s size twelve Air Jordan Retro 88 shoes, 

Christopher Hersh’s size nine Timberlands workmen’s boots, and the 

shoeprints taken from several of the burglarized homes. N.T. Trial, 8/29/18, 

at 578-91. She concluded that the tread design of the Nike Air Jordan Retro 

3 and Nike Air Jordan 3 Retro 88 shoes, which included the word “Jordan,”

corresponded with the shoeprints lifted from the sites of two of the 

burglaries. Id. at 583-87. She also concluded that the impressions taken 

from the crime scenes corresponded with Appellant’s Air Jordan shoes. Id.

at 598-99, 609-10. However, she stated that she had not identified a 

specific shoe as the source of the prints. Id. at 620.

During closing arguments, the Commonwealth discussed Sergeant 

Klinger’s testimony as follows:

Sergeant Klinger has certain investigative standards she has to 

follow. I submit to you she is rather conservative about the 

conclusions that she chooses to come to. And that’s probably a 

good thing. They understand the nature of the conclusions that 

they make. And it’s important that they do it the way they do. I 

will go further. This is the same shoe. This is identical. It fits 

right over perfectly the two holes here at the base of the heel, 
J-S07028-20

- 20 -

fits completely perfectly. The [“]Jordan[”]words[8]fit completely 

perfectly. This is a size twelve shoe. The reason it didn’t matter 

whether or not [Christopher] Hersh also had some other kind of, 

quote, Jordan, this isn’t made by a size nine shoe. This is 

completely identical.

I’m not saying with one hundred percent certainty. That’s not 

what we’re required to prove. It’s not a raging coincidence that 

the shoes that are taken off of his person seem to match with 

unbelievable fitness to the shoe mark that is on the [first] door. 

That’s just the [first] door. Then we have the [second] door. 

Again, what a raging coincidence when his phone hits a house 

twenty minutes later, just happens to be -- again, this is the 

scaled version of the picture. She takes the picture from the 

[second] door and uses the scale on the size so she can scale it 

to be life size and again takes the print from the original shoe 

and tries to match it up. And again it is identical. It fits like a 

glove. The hole at the bottom of the heel there fits right cleanly 

in. The marking from the way the heel curved this way fits that 

way. That wouldn’t happen unless it was the same size shoe. 

So it would have to have been somebody else wearing an Air 

Jordan Three, size twelve. I’m sure there’s somebody else out 

there. In fact, there’s probably a number of people who might 

have a size twelve Air Jordan Three. Make no mistake. This 

isn’t just bad luck for [Appellant]. Someone didn’t just happen 

to have a size twelve shoe. This matches perfectly.

N.T. Trial, 8/31/18, at 874-75.

Immediately after the Commonwealth’s closing, Appellant’s counsel 

requested a sidebar, during which the following exchange occurred:

[Appellant’s counsel]: I’d like to note an objection to [the 

prosecutor’s] characterization of the shoe that was in evidence 

as identical to the shoe print, because that is contrary to the 

evidence presented through Sergeant Klinger and her expert 

opinion.

____________________________________________

8 The word “Jordan” is part of the tread design of the Nike Air Jordan Retro 3 

and Nike Air Jordan 3 Retro 88, which was visible in the footprints found at 

the burglarized homes. 
J-S07028-20

- 21 -

[The Commonwealth]: It’s argument. It was closing argument. 

I’m allowed to argue that.

THE COURT: I’ll remind them that their recollection of the 

evidence controls. I think it’s legitimate argument, whether or 

not it’s the shoe. I don’t believe it was that objectionable, quite 

honestly.

N.T. Trial, 8/31/18, at 900-01. Appellant’s counsel did not request a mistrial 

or object to the trial court’s proposed curative instruction. Id.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s statements were 

“not an accurate representation or inference from the expert testimony.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 53. Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth 

mischaracterized Sergeant Klinger’s testimony and “purposely misstated the 

facts.” Id. Further, Appellant claims that “[o]ther than Anita Hersh, whose 

significant deficiencies were discussed [previously], the only evidence tying 

Appellant to [two of the burglaries] was the shoe impression. The 

prosecutor’s mischaracterization of the expert testimony was, therefore, 

clearly prejudicial.” Id. Appellant concludes that the trial court erred by 

overruling his objection.

The Commonwealth responds that the trial court properly overruled 

Appellant’s objection. Commonwealth’s Brief at 41. The Commonwealth 

notes that “the law affords a prosecutor reasonable latitude in closing 

arguments and that a prosecutor may discuss the evidence and suggest 

reasonable inferences.” Id. at 42-43. Additionally, the Commonwealth 

asserts that any alleged prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s comments must 
J-S07028-20

- 22 -

be evaluated in context. Id. at 41-42. Therefore, the Commonwealth 

contends that Appellant’s claim is meritless.

“[I]n reviewing a claim of improper prosecutorial comments, our 

standard of review ‘is whether the trial court abused its discretion.’” 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 830, 835 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation 

omitted).

[I]t is well settled that statements made by the prosecutor to the 

jury during closing argument will not form the basis for granting 

a new trial unless the unavoidable effect of such comments 

would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias 

and hostility toward the defendant so they could not weigh the 

evidence objectively and render a true verdict. The appellate 

courts have recognized that not every unwise remark by an 

attorney amounts to misconduct or warrants the grant of a new 

trial. Additionally, like the defense, the prosecution is accorded 

reasonable latitude, may employ oratorical flair in arguing its 

version of the case to the jury, and may advance arguments 

supported by the evidence or use inferences that can reasonably 

be derived therefrom.

Id. (citation omitted).

Although a defendant is required to raise a contemporaneous 

objection, “there is often some leeway provided with this rule with regard to 

opening and closing statements, where, by custom, it often preferred to 

reserve objections until the end of such statements . . . .” Commonwealth 

v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49, 77 (Pa. Super. 2017) (footnote omitted). However, 

“even where a defendant objects to specific conduct, the failure to request a 

remedy such as a mistrial or curative instruction is sufficient to constitute 

waiver.” Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663, 670 (Pa. Super. 
J-S07028-20

- 23 -

2013) (citation omitted and formatting altered); see also Jones, 191 A.3d 

at 837 (finding that the defendant waived his claims relating to the 

Commonwealth’s opening statements even though the defense objected

twice to the prosecutor’s statements, because the defense did not request 

further relief).

Here, the trial court found that Appellant waived this issue by failing to 

“raise the objection at the earliest possible stage of the Commonwealth’s 

closing argument.” Trial Ct. Op. at 12. The trial court further concluded

that even if Appellant properly preserved his claim, the Commonwealth’s 

statements were “a fair comment on the actual evidence presented at trial.” 

Id.

While our review of the record confirms that Appellant waived this 

claim, we reach this conclusion on a different basis than the trial court.

9

Although Appellant objected to the prosecutor’s closing statement, he did 

not object to the trial court’s curative jury instruction or request a mistrial. 

See N.T. Trial, 8/31/18, at 900-01. Therefore, Appellant cannot now claim 

that the trial court erred by failing to grant relief that he did not request.10 

See Sandusky, 77 A.3d at 670; see also Jones, 191 A.3d at 837.

____________________________________________

9 Although our analysis differs from that of the trial court, we may affirm on 

any legal basis supported by the certified record. Commonwealth v. 

Clemens, 66 A.3d 373, 381 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2013).

10 In any event, as noted herein, the trial court instructed the jury to rely on 

their own recollection of the evidence and emphasized that the parties’ 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S07028-20

- 24 -

Discretionary Aspects of Sentence

In his final claim, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion by imposing an aggregate sentence of nine to twenty years’ 

incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 33. Appellant asserts that although his 

sentences were within the sentencing guidelines, “the case involves 

circumstances where the application of the guidelines was clearly 

unreasonable as applied.” Id. at 34 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2)). 

Appellant contends that, “as applied consecutively,” his sentence was 

“unreasonable and excessive.” Id. at 35. Appellant asserts that “the trial 

court failed to consider . . . mitigating factors” such as Appellant’s

“disruptive childhood” or his “history of substance abuse.” Id. at 35, 39. 

Appellant also points to his lack of a substantial criminal history, the fact 

that he has two children, and his failure to successfully complete drug and 

alcohol treatment. Id. at 40. Appellant argues that “[a]lthough the 

sentences take into account the protection of the public and the impact on 

(Footnote Continued)_______________________

arguments do not constitute evidence. See N.T. Trial, 8/31/18, at 829.

Further, the trial court’s cautionary instruction, given without defense 

objection, was sufficient to instruct the jury concerning the Commonwealth’s 

closing statements. See Spotz, 896 A.2d at 1224 (holding that the law 

presumes that the jury will follow the court’s instructions). Therefore, even 

if Appellant had moved for a mistrial, the trial court had discretion to deny it. 

See Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262, 1273 (Pa. 2016) (stating 

that we review a trial court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of 

discretion and reiterating that “a mistrial is not necessary where cautionary 

instructions are adequate to overcome prejudice” (citation omitted and 

formatting altered)). 
J-S07028-20

- 25 -

the victims, the sentences do not take into account the mitigating factors or 

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs.” Id. Therefore, Appellant concludes that 

his sentence was unreasonable. Id.

The Commonwealth responds that Appellant failed to raise a 

substantial question. Commonwealth’s Brief at 24. Further, the 

Commonwealth contends that the trial court was “aware of and appropriately 

weighed all relevant information regarding [Appellant’s] character along with 

any alleged mitigating factors, and adequately explained the reasons for its 

sentence.” Id. at 30. Therefore, the Commonwealth asserts that Appellant 

is not entitled to relief. Id. at 35.

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an 

appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 

991 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Before reaching the merits of such 

claims, we must determine: 

(1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant 

preserved his issues; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a 

[Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)] concise statement of the reasons relied upon 

for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects 

of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a 

substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the 

sentencing code.

Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations 

omitted). 

“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Battles, 169 A.3d 
J-S07028-20

- 26 -

1086, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). “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. Grays, 167 

A.3d 793, 816 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

Here, Appellant preserved his sentencing claims in a post-sentence 

motion, filed a timely notice of appeal, and included a Rule 2119(f) 

statement in his brief. See id. Further, Appellant has raised a substantial 

question for our review. See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 

338 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that a “challenge to the imposition of [the

defendant’s] consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with [a] 

claim that the court failed to consider [the defendant’s] rehabilitative needs 

and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial 

question”); see also Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769-70 

(Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that an allegation that a sentence was excessive 

along with a claim that the court failed to consider certain mitigating factors 

raises a substantial question). Therefore, we will review the merits of 

Appellant’s claim.

Our well-settled standard of review is as follows:

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, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, 
J-S07028-20

- 27 -

that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, 

exercised its judgments for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias 

or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted).

“A sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its 

reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statute in 

question, but the record as a whole must reflect the sentencing court’s 

consideration of the facts of the crime and character of the offender.” 

Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(citation omitted). Further, where a PSI exists, “we shall . . . presume that 

the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the 

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with 

mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 

1177 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 206 A.3d 1029 

(Pa. 2019).

Where a sentence is imposed within the guidelines, we may only 

reverse the trial court if we find that the circumstances of the case rendered 

the application of the guidelines “clearly unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9781(c)(2). Our review of the reasonableness is based upon the factors 

contained in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d) and the trial court’s consideration of the 
J-S07028-20

- 28 -

general sentencing standards contained in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).11 See 

Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 663 (Pa. Super. 2013). However, 

“[w]e cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment in 

the place of the sentencing court.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 

773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

Finally, it is well settled that “Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing 

court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other 

sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already 

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

(citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 134 

(Pa. Super. 2014) (reiterating that a defendant “is not entitled to a ‘volume 

discount’ because the various crimes occurred in one continuous spree.” 

(citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Here, at sentencing, the trial court stated:

____________________________________________

11 Section 9721(b) states that “the sentence imposed should call for total 

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. § 9721(b).

Section 9781(d) provides that, in reviewing the record, we must have regard 

for: “(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant[;] (2) The opportunity of the sentencing 

court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation[;] 

(3) The findings upon which the sentence was based[; and] (4) The 

guidelines promulgated by the commission.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d).
J-S07028-20

- 29 -

The courts are required 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 on the impact on the life of the victim and on the 

community, as well as addressing the rehabilitative needs of the 

defendant. I also am required to consider the guidelines. . . .

Th[is c]ourt has considered all the factors specified in our 

sentencing code. And the difficult part is balancing the specific 

background and character and circumstances of the defendant 

with the circumstances of the crime to determine the need to 

incarcerate him to prevent future offenses by him, as well as the 

possibility of his rehabilitation. So as you can see, it’s a 

mouthful.

I studied the PSI. In my balancing, there were things that were 

favorable to the defense. And in my balancing there were things 

favorable to the Commonwealth, as most of the time there are. 

This young man did come from a difficult childhood. To quote 

his mother, difficulty raising her children by herself and 

contemplating putting her children up for adoption. And his 

father took the defendant to Mexico. And he lived there for 

years and so forth.

He had juvenile problems and just seems like he never adjusted 

even after going to the Youth Forestry School and so forth. I 

also, when I tried this case with the jury, I obviously had no idea 

what his record would be. . . . [H]e really graduated from theft 

‘07, false ID to police in ‘15 and DUI in ‘15. And in ‘04 he had 

paraphernalia. Graduating from these misdemeanors to these 

major, serious felonies is quite a jump.

His adjustment to probation as a juvenile was poor. He 

continued drug usage, fighting in school, causing disturbances, I 

mentioned that, as well about his RRRI eligibility. I believe on 

term number 2199 of ‘07, it’s his sixth violation. I do note this 

young man has two children. He used heroin and 

methamphetamine, I believe, according to the PSI. He has not 

completed any drug and alcohol treatment successfully.

A couple things come up. The way these homes were entered 

and so forcefully, so damagingly, it was appalling. I pictured the 

entrances like it happened yesterday because I saw all the 

photographs. People work very hard to buy a home, pay off a 

mortgage, only to have people such as this fellow destroying 

their dreams, the sanctity of their home. The feeling of security 
J-S07028-20

- 30 -

is forever taken. It was mentioned here. The victims fear is now 

great. The sense of security is gone.

Irreplaceable items are gone. It was horrific horror to these 

victims. The entry was very, very violent. It was very 

dangerous. The situation with the person being home was 

dangerous. There were multiple current convictions. Until now 

there was little remorse by this fellow. There was some 

remorse. I noticed an apology. But I have to -- if I give a lesser 

sentence than I’m going to give, I believe would depreciate the 

seriousness of the crime, extreme disregard to people’s 

property, multiple victims.

I’m considering the recommendation of the prosecutor. The 

property damage here was extreme and unnecessary. The mode 

of entry was very violent. And some of the things in the house, 

the way they were tampered with and destroyed showed a 

complete, utter distain for law abiding citizens and their 

property. I remember papers were destroyed. And it was just 

an awful situation.

N.T. Sentencing Hr’g, 11/20/18, at 37-39.

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court further explained:

[Appellant] merely contends that the imposed sentences fail to 

address his rehabilitative needs and does not account for 

mitigating circumstances. [Appellant] fails to state with 

particularity how the court failed to address his rehabilitative 

needs or which mitigating circumstances the [trial c]ourt failed 

to consider. [Appellant’s] boilerplate allegations in this case are 

inadequate to meet his burden of demonstrating that the [trial 

c]ourt committed an error of law. We are constrained to 

conclude that the aforesaid assertions are undeveloped, 

confusing, or too vague, and, therefore, impede meaningful 

review. Accordingly, these issues are waived and can form no 

successful basis for relief.

Even if this claim is not waived, [Appellant] is otherwise not 

entitled to the requested relief. The record reflects that the [trial 

c]ourt considered all of the sentencing factors relevant to 

[Appellant], including both aggravating and mitigating factors. 

At sentencing, the [trial c]ourt had the benefit of reviewing the 

PSI, which was completed by Chester County Adult Probation. 

The PSI described in great detail [Appellant’s] prior criminal 
J-S07028-20

- 31 -

history, attempts, or lack thereof of rehabilitation, and abysmal 

supervision history. Specifically, the PSI revealed that 

[Appellant] has been on supervision in [Chester] County since 

2007. At the time of sentencing on the present case, [Appellant] 

was on his sixth probation/parole violation on Criminal Docket 

Number CP-15-CR-2199-2007 and second probation/parole 

violation on CP-15-CR-4650-2015. [Appellant’s] violations on 

those cases resulted from absconding, continuing drug use, and 

the filing of new criminal charges, including the present cases. 

Because [Appellant’s] sentence was legal, within the Sentencing 

Guidelines, and substantially less than the sentence requested 

by the Commonwealth; this issue lacks arguable merit.

* * *

In the present case, we emphasize that the jury found 

[Appellant] guilty of all charges. These offenses stemmed from 

[Appellant] and co-defendants’ systematic string of burglaries 

encompassing four separate homes, and an attempted burglary 

of a fifth home, all of which occurred over a nine day span. This 

is not a case where the same home was broken into multiple 

times or a case in which all of the homes at issue were 

burglarized on the same day.

We write further on this issue to point out that the aggregate 

sentence in this case of nine to twenty years did not exceed the 

statutory limits nor was it manifestly excessive as to constitute 

an abuse of discretion. Not only did [Appellant and his codefendants] burglarize or attempt to burglarize the

aforementioned homes and steal anything they deemed to have 

value, but they also ransacked the homes, broke things, and 

ripped up important documents. [Appellant] is not entitled to a

“volume discount” for his crimes by having the sentences run 

concurrently. To impose such a volume discount would 

depreciate the seriousness of the burglaries and would 

incorrectly appear that the [trial c]ourt somehow placed a higher 

emphasis on certain burglaries over others. Burglary is a 

personal injury crime and can have long-lasting effects on 

victims.

Whereas here, despite four of the homeowners not actually 

being present during the commission of the crimes; burglary is 

still a very traumatic experience for these victims. Not only is 

the home, which is supposed to be a sacred place, invaded but 

items of great personal value, monetary and/or sentimental, 
J-S07028-20

- 32 -

were stolen or destroyed, many of which were never recovered 

and cannot be replaced.

A look at the planning and execution of these burglaries makes 

clear why [Appellant] needs a substantial state sentence. This 

was far more than an impulsive decision to break into a house, 

steal items that belonged to homeowners, and sell them [sic]

items for quick cash for drugs. [Appellant] violated the intimacy 

of five homes and took valuable, sentimental, items from

homeowners, which can never be replaced. Thus, concurrent 

sentences would not have had the same deterrent effect, would 

not have adequately protected the public, and would have 

inherently revictimized the homeowners. Lastly, it is important 

to note that all of the burglaries were committed while 

[Appellant] was already under Chester County supervision for 

two other unrelated cases.

Based on a review of the record, we are compelled to conclude 

that this issue is meritless. An extensive three-hour long 

sentencing hearing was conducted in which the background of

[Appellant] was exhaustively probed. The record reveals that 

the court was informed by a PSI and that it clearly stated the 

reasons for the guideline sentence imposed.

Trial Ct. Op. at 7-9 (citations omitted and some formatting altered).

As noted previously, the trial court had the benefit of a PSI report, 

which it reviewed prior to sentencing. See N.T. Sentencing Hr’g at 37. 

Further, based on our review of the record, it is evident that the trial court 

considered the relevant information and mitigating factors in fashioning 

Appellant’s sentence. See Conte, 198 A.3d at 1177. Additionally, the trial 

court explicitly referred to Appellant’s difficult childhood, his history of 

substance abuse, and the fact that he was the father of two children. See

N.T. Sentencing Hr’g at 37-38. Therefore, to the extent Appellant claims 

that the trial court failed to consider his mitigating circumstances, he is not 

entitled to relief.
J-S07028-20

- 33 -

Based on our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion 

by the trial court in fashioning Appellant’s sentence. In addition to the PSI 

report, the trial court also considered the nature and circumstances of the 

offenses, the impact on the victims, and the protection of the public. See 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b); see also Baker, 72 A.3d at 663. Although the trial 

court imposed consecutive sentences, the trial court explained that a lesser 

sentence “would depreciate the seriousness of the crime.” N.T. Sentencing 

Hr’g at 39. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Appellant’s 

sentence was “clearly unreasonable” or excessive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9781(d); see also Austin, 66 A.3d at 808; see also Zirkle, 107 A.3d at 

134. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief. See Raven, 97 A.3d at 

1253.

For the reasons herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment of 

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judge Strassburger joins the memorandum.

Judge King did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.
J-S07028-20

- 34 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/12/2020