J-A08044-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

JEFFERY ALLEN MESSNER,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1461 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 1, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-36-CR-0000747-2010 and 

CP-36-CR-0001222-2010

BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015

Jeffery Allen Messner (Appellant) appeals from a judgment of sentence 

entered after the trial court revoked his probation.1 We affirm.

Given the manner in which we dispose of this appeal, we need only 

briefly summarize the background underlying the matter. On May 14, 2014, 

the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation. The court sentenced Appellant 

on August 1, 2014. Appellant timely filed a motion to modify his sentence 

wherein he generically claimed that his sentence “was an abuse of the 

[c]ourt’s discretion” and asked the court to lessen his sentence. Motion to 

Modify Sentence, 8/11/2014, at ¶ 6. The trial court denied the motion. 

 

1 Throughout the certified record and related documents, Appellant’s first 

name is spelled as both “Jeffery” and “Jeffrey.”
J-A08044-15

- 2 -

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant and the trial court 

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

In his brief to this Court, Appellant asks us to consider one question, 

namely, “Was a sentence of four to eight years [of] incarceration for a 

probation violation manifestly excessive as to constitute too severe a 

punishment and contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the 

sentencing process?” Appellant’s Brief at 4. This issue challenges the 

discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence.

It is well settled that, with regard to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing, there is no automatic right to appeal.

Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to 

the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage 

in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the 

appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his 

issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a 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 appropriate under 

the sentencing code.... [I]f the appeal satisfies each of 

these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide 

the substantive merits of the case.

Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations 

omitted).

Appellant timely filed his appeal, and his brief contains a concise 

statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal. In that statement, 

Appellant claims that “[i]n imposing a sentence of four to eight years [of] 

incarceration, the court violated the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721, and 
J-A08044-15

- 3 -

failed to consider [Appellant’s] strong need for inpatient rehabilitation and 

mental health treatment.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. In other words, Appellant 

contends that his sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to 

consider his rehabilitative needs. 

In order to have preserved this issue for appellate review, Appellant 

had to raise it in his post-sentence motion or in an objection at the 

sentencing hearing. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are 

generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a 

motion to modify the sentence imposed.”). Appellant did not object to his 

sentence during the sentencing hearing. Moreover, while Appellant did file a 

post-sentence motion to modify his sentence, his motion made no mention 

of the trial court failing to consider his rehabilitative needs. Consequently, 

Appellant waived his sole appellate issue.2 For this reason, we affirm the 

judgment of sentence.

Judgement of sentence affirmed.

 

2 Even if Appellant had preserved this claim and the claim presented a 

substantial question worthy of appellate review, Appellant would not be 

entitled to relief. The record clearly indicates that the trial court considered 

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs in fashioning his sentence. N.T., 8/1/2004, 

at 12-17.
J-A08044-15

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/10/2015