J-S64030-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ZEPPELIN JOSHUA ZEIGLER

Appellant No. 175 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of December 24, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-41-CR-0000769-2009

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2015

Zeppelin Zeigler appeals the December 24, 2014 judgment of 

sentence, which the trial court imposed following the revocation of his 

probation. We affirm. 

The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history 

of this case as follows:

On March 31, 2009, police were dispatched to the Village Park in 

Antes Fort, because someone was “doing donuts” (driving in 

circles) on the ball fields. As police headed to the ball fields, 

they were advised by County Communications that the vehicle, a 

light-colored Ford Explorer, was now traveling on Front Street 

towards Route 44. 

The police came up behind the Ford Explorer on Route 44, and 

immediately observed signs that the driver may be driving under 

the influence of alcohol. The vehicle was drifting over the double 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64030-15

- 2 -

center-line and the white fog-line, and came close to striking the 

guiderail on at least one occasion. 

When police activated their lights and sirens to conduct a traffic 

stop, it appeared that the driver of the vehicle was going to pull 

over and stop, but the driver suddenly pulled the vehicle back 

onto the roadway and sped away. A high-speed chase ensued 

on country roads, and then went “off road” onto farm roads and 

fields. While traveling on the farm fields, the driver turned the 

vehicle and drove towards the police vehicle. The police vehicle 

struck the passenger side of the Ford Explorer, but the driver 

continued his flight in the fields. To get the driver to stop, the 

police used the front of their vehicle to strike the rear of the Ford 

Explorer numerous times until the Ford Explorer spun to a stop. 

Zeigler was the driver of the Ford Explorer. One of the police 

officers experienced pain in his back and neck. An ambulance 

was requested for the female passenger in Zeigler’s vehicle who 

was also experiencing neck pain. 

Zeigler was transported for chemical testing of his blood to the 

Jersey Shore Hospital emergency room, where he was loud, 

belligerent, and caused a disturbance. 

Zeigler was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, 

fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, accidents involving 

death or personal injury, driving under the influence of alcohol 

(“DUI”), two counts of aggravated assault, three counts of 

recklessly endangering another person, disorderly conduct, 

criminal mischief,[1]and numerous other summary offenses.

On December 22, 2009, Zeigler pleaded guilty to count one, 

fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, counts four and 

six, recklessly endangering another person, count nineteen, DUI, 

count eleven, criminal mischief, and count eighteen, driving 

while suspended. Zeigler was sentenced to an aggregate 

sentence of one year and thirty days to two years and six 

months’ incarceration in a state correctional institution, followed 

by a five-year term of probation. 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32); 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3733, 3742.1, 3802(a)(1); 

18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702, 2705, 5503, and 3304(a)(5), respectively. 
J-S64030-15

- 3 -

Zeigler subsequently violated the conditions of his probation. On 

February 20, 2013, the trial court revoked Zeigler’s probation on 

count one only, and re-sentenced him to one to two years’ 

incarceration in a state correctional institution. Zeigler, 

however, sought reconsideration of this sentence. In his motion, 

he claimed that his employment, drug rehabilitation through 

AA/NA while incarcerated, and the birth of his child would 

prevent him from committing further offenses. Furthermore, he 

alleged that Lycoming County had alternative resources to treat 

his drug problems. Therefore, a state sentence, as opposed to a 

county sentence, was excessive. The trial court granted 

Zeigler’s motion for reconsideration on March 18, 2013, and, on 

count one, sentenced Zeigler to a split sentence of incarceration 

of one year less one day to two years less one day in the 

Lycoming County Prison, and an additional two years’ probation. 

Zeigler’s other probation sentences continued to run consecutive 

to his sentence on count one, per the original sentencing order. 

On December 24, 2014, the trial court, again, found that Zeigler 

violated the conditions of his probation by committing a new 

criminal offense and smoking “spice” (synthetic marijuana). The 

trial court re-sentenced Zeigler on count six, recklessly 

endangering another person, to one to two years’ imprisonment 

in a state correctional institution. 

Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/2015, at 1-3 (minor modifications for clarity). 

On January 22, 2015, Zeigler timely filed a notice of appeal. On April 

23, 2015, the trial court ordered Zeigler to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Zeigler timely 

complied. On July 7, 2015, the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. 

Zeigler presents one issue for our consideration: “Whether the [trial] 

court abused its discretion at [Zeigler’s] probation revocation hearing by 

imposing a manifestly excessive and unduly harsh sentence.” Brief for 

Zeigler at 4 (capitalization modified for clarity). 
J-S64030-15

- 4 -

Zeigler’s issue raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. An appellant is not entitled to review of such a challenge as of 

right. Instead, we conduct a four-part jurisdictional 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. § 9781(b).

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks, citations, and modifications omitted). 

Instantly, Zeigler timely filed a notice of appeal and his brief contains 

the required Rule 2119(f) statement. However, our review of the certified 

record and the transcript of Zeigler’s probation revocation hearing reveals 

that Zeigler did not challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence either 

in open court or in a post-sentence motion. Consequently, we must 

conclude that Zeigler has waived his challenge to the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence, and has failed to invoke our jurisdiction over his claim. See 

id.; Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 (Pa. Super. 2005) 

(citation omitted) (“Issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the 

claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings. Absent such 

efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspects of a sentence is waived.”). 
J-S64030-15

- 5 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/19/2015