J-A10022-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NATHANIEL WILLIAMS

Appellant No. 1381 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 14, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001934-2013

 CP-67-CR-0006449-2013

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 06, 2015

Appellant, Nathaniel Williams, appeals from the July 14, 2014 

aggregate judgment of sentence of 50 to 100 months’ imprisonment 

imposed, following an open guilty plea to two counts of simple assault and 

one count of endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC).1 After careful 

review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural 

background of this case as follows.

Both of the[se] ... cases involve [] Appellant’s 

actions toward his children. More specifically, in 

case [CP-67-CR-6449-2013], [] Appellant admitted 

to getting mad at his son N.W. ... for “spilling the 

beans.” [] Appellant hit N.W. causing the child to fall 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 4304(a)(1), respectively.
J-A10022-15

- 2 -

off the bed, which resulted in N.W.’s leg being 

broken. In case [CP-67-CR-1934-2013], [] Appellant 

admitted to grabbing his daughter U.W. ... by the 

throat hard enough to leave a red mark. [] 

Appellant again stated he did this because he was 

mad at his daughter for breaking a DVD player.

Also in case [CP-67-CR-1934-2013], [] 

Appellant admitted that the living conditions at the 

motel where police found his five children were 

unkempt. [] Appellant admitted that black trash 

bags with garbage spilling out of the top littered the 

room; empty food containers were also strewn 

about; dirty dishes and cigarette butts were all over 

the countertops; numerous soiled diapers were 

found on the floor; and that no food or water was 

found with the exception of a small can of noodles 

that all five children were sharing for dinner. Lastly, 

[] Appellant admitted that he left his eleven[-]year[-

]old daughter in charge of the four other children 

when he left the motel room.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/8/14, at 2 (internal citations omitted).

On April 11, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information at docket 

number CP-67-CR-1934-2013, charging Appellant with a total of one count 

of aggravated assault2, two counts of simple assault, and six counts of

EWOC. On October 10, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an information at 

docket number CP-67-CR-6449-2013, charging Appellant with one count 

each of harassment3, aggravated assault, and simple assault. On July 14, 

2014, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to two counts of simple assault, 

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).
J-A10022-15

- 3 -

one at each docket number, and one count of EWOC at docket number CP67-CR-1934-2013. That same day, the trial court imposed an aggregate 

sentence of 50 to 100 months’ imprisonment.4 On July 21, 2014, Appellant 

filed a timely motion for modification of sentence, which the trial court 

denied on August 1, 2014. On August 12, 2014, Appellant filed a timely 

notice of appeal.5

On appeal, Appellant presents one issue for our review.

Whether the aggregate sentence of fifty (50) to one 

hundred (100) months[’] incarceration constitutes an 

abuse of discretion when the sentence imposed is 

inconsistent with the gravity of the offenses and 

protection of the public and does not consider 

relevant mitigating factors[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

At the outset, we note that Appellant’s argument on appeal pertains to 

the discretionary aspects of his sentence. “Pennsylvania law makes clear 

that by entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge on 

direct appeal all non[-]jurisdictional defects except the legality of the 

sentence and the validity of the plea.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 

____________________________________________

4 Specifically, at docket number CP-67-CR-1934-2013, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to 16 to 32 months’ imprisonment for simple assault 

and 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment for EWOC. At docket number CP-67-

CR-6449-2013, the trial court imposed a sentence of 16 to 32 months’ 

imprisonment for simple assault. All sentences were to run consecutively.

5 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925.
J-A10022-15

- 4 -

A.3d 606, 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 87 A.3d

319 (Pa. 2014). However, when a defendant’s plea is an open guilty plea, 

he or she does not waive claims regarding the discretionary aspects of the 

sentence “because there was no agreement as to the sentence [the 

defendant] would receive.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 359, 363 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]here is no absolute right 

to appeal when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence.” 

Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 666 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted). When an appellant forwards an argument pertaining to the 

discretionary aspects of the sentence, this Court considers such an argument 

to be a petition for permission to appeal. Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 

91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted), appeal 

denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “[A]n [a]ppeal is permitted only after this 

Court determines that there is a substantial question that the sentence was 

not appropriate under the sentencing code.” Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 

83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of sentencing 

issue, this Court is required to conduct a four-part analysis to determine 

whether a petition for permission to appeal should be granted. 

Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1039 (Pa. Super. 2014) 
J-A10022-15

- 5 -

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). Specifically, we 

must determine the following.

(1) [W]hether appellant has filed a timely notice of 

appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 903; (2) whether the issue 

was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion 

to reconsider and modify sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P. 

[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).

Id.

In the case sub judice, we note that Appellant filed a timely motion for 

modification of sentence and notice of appeal. We further observe that 

Appellant has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. Thus, we 

proceed to determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial question for 

our review.

“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 

323, 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75 

(Pa. 2013). “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.” Id. 

(citations omitted). “Additionally, we cannot look beyond the statement of 

questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine 
J-A10022-15

- 6 -

whether a substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 

50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012).

In this case, Appellant avers that the trial court abused its discretion 

based on the following. 

[The sentence is] inconsistent with the rehabilitative 

needs of Appellant; inconsistent with the gravity of 

the offenses as they relate to the impact on the lives 

of the victim and on the community; inconsistent 

with the protection of the public; and exceedingly 

punitive in nature in light of Appellant’s admission of 

guilt and other relevant factors such as Appellant’s 

age and rehabilitative ability.

Appellant’s Brief at 7. 

This Court has long recognized that “an allegation that a sentencing 

court ... did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a 

substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate.” Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 968 A.2d 

1280 (Pa. 2009); see also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529 

(Pa. Super. 2005) (stating “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating 

factors does not raise a substantial question for our review”). Furthermore, 

this Court has held that an argument that the trial court failed to consider 

certain mitigating factors in favor of a lesser sentence does not present a 

substantial question appropriate for our review. Commonwealth v. 

Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2011); accord

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). As a 
J-A10022-15

- 7 -

result, Appellant has failed to a raise a substantial question for our review.6 

See Edwards, supra.

Based on the foregoing, we deny Appellant’s petition for permission to 

appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Accordingly, the trial 

court’s July 14, 2014 judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/6/2015

____________________________________________

6 Even if we were permitted to address the merits, Appellant would not be 

entitled to relief. We note that Appellant waived the preparation of a PSI for 

the two docket numbers in this appeal. N.T., 7/14/14, at 18. Furthermore, 

the trial court states that “[a]ll relevant factors were considered, including 

that pre-sentence report prepared for an unrelated case[, but a sentence 

imposed at the same proceeding with those in this appeal], the gravity of 

the offenses, protection of the public, and mitigating factors[.]” Trial Court 

Opinion, 10/8/14, at 6.