J-A15005-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRADLEY MCMULLEN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1731 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 20, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000018-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 20, 2018

Bradley McMullen appeals from the judgment of sentence of five to ten 

years of confinement, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to theft by 

unlawful taking–movable property.1 We affirm.

The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. Appellant traded his 

mother’s firearm in exchange for drugs. That firearm was later used to kill

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Landon Weaver.

2

Prior to sentencing, the trial court ordered and received a pre-sentence 

investigation (“PSI”). On July 20, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

2 All parties agree that, at the time of the trade, Appellant was unaware and 

could not have foreseen that this murder would be committed with the 

firearm.
J-A15005-18

- 2 -

the statutory maximum. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which 

the trial court denied. Appellant later had his appellate rights reinstated nunc 

pro tunc. This timely appeal follows. 

Appellant presents the following issue for our review:

Did the court below err by imposing the maximum sentence 

allowed for [Appellant]’s crime, based solely on the resulting 

consequences, which were unforeseeable and beyond 

[Appellant]’s control?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3. Appellant thus challenges the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence.

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right. Prior to reaching the 

merits of a discretionary sentencing issue[, w]e conduct a fourpart analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a 

timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether 

the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to 

reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; 

(3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); 

and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence 

appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 489 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(some citations omitted; formatting altered).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, properly preserved this issue 

in his post-sentence motion, and included a concise statement of the reasons 

relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence in a separate section of his brief to this Court pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). We therefore turn to the final requirement: whether the 
J-A15005-18

- 3 -

question raised by Appellant is a substantial question meriting our 

discretionary review.

In his rule 2119(f) statement, Appellant argues that, when sentencing 

him, the trial court only considered the seriousness of the crime and did not 

take into account his character or rehabilitative needs. These claims raise 

substantial questions for our review. See Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 

A.3d 872, 875 (Pa. Super. 2012); Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 

1149, 1160–1161 (Pa. Super. 2017); and Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 

A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015).

By raising a substantial question, along with fulfilling the other 

requirements of our four-part analysis, Appellant consequently has merited 

our discretionary review. 

Our standard of review for a challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing 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, 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. Conte, ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2018 WL 5666923, *5 (Pa. 

Super., filed Nov. 1, 2018) (citation omitted).

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

reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statute in 
J-A15005-18

- 4 -

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. Schutzues, 54 A.3d 86, 99 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations 

omitted).

In addition,

[w]here [a] pre-sentence report[] exist[s], we shall continue to 

presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant 

information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed 

those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors. A 

presentence report constitutes the record and speaks for itself. In 

order to dispel any lingering doubt as to our intention of engaging 

in an effort of legal purification, we state clearly that sentencers 

are under no compulsion to employ checklists or any extended or 

systematic definitions of their punishment procedure. Having been 

fully informed by the pre-sentence report, the sentencing court’s 

discretion should not be disturbed.

Accordingly, where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence report, it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant 

information regarding appellant’s character and weighed those 

considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.

Conte, ___ A.3d at ___, 2018 WL 5666923 at *5 (brackets added and 

omitted, citations, and quotation marks omitted).

Here, the trial court explained:

In sentencing [Appellant], we reviewed and considered the [PSI] 

prepared by the Huntingdon County Probation Department, the 

prior criminal record of [Appellant], gave consideration to the 

protection of public, the gravity of the offense and the impact of 

the offense on the life of the victim and the community. We also 

considered the rehabilitative needs of [Appellant], as well as the 

statutory Sentencing Guidelines. (Sentencing Tr. p. 5). 

[Appellant]’s prior conduct and the impact the crime had on the 

community weighed especially heavily on this Court. The horrific 

chain of events triggered by [Appellant]’s conduct have been 

taken into consideration by this Court, and the sentence imposed 
J-A15005-18

- 5 -

pales in comparison to the price paid by Trooper Landon Weaver 

and this community.

Trial Court Opinion, filed Jan. 4, 2018, at 2.

Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s contention, the trial court did not 

only consider the seriousness of the crime, but also took into account his 

rehabilitative needs. Additionally, although the trial court did not explicitly 

state that it considered Appellant’s character, as it asserted that it “reviewed 

and considered” the PSI, we presume that the trial court “was aware of 

relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those 

considerations[.]” 

Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when sentencing Appellant, and, ergo, Appellant’s sole challenge on 

appeal merits no relief. We thereby affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2018