J-S22012-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANGELINA JAY TATEM 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1855 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 9, 2019

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

No(s): CP-66-CR-0000052-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 22, 2020

Appellant, Angelina Jay Tatem, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on October 9, 2019, as made final by the denial of her post-sentence 

motion on October 22, 2019, following her guilty plea to drug delivery 

resulting in death.1 We affirm. 

The trial court accurately summarized the relevant factual and 

procedural history of this case as follows.

On or about March 14, 2018, [police authorities filed a criminal 

complaint against Appellant for possession of a controlled 

substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.] According to 

the affidavit of probable cause, in February [] 2018[, the 

Tunkhannock Borough Police received] numerous complaints . . . 

from neighbors of a residence located [along] Maple Avenue in 

Tunkhannock Borough, Wyoming County, Pennsylvania 

(hereafter[,] “the residence”)[. Specifically, the neighbors 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506(a). 
J-S22012-20

- 2 -

complained] of suspicious activity . . . consisting of numerous 

different vehicles frequenting the residence, entering the same, 

staying for a minute then leaving, all at extremely late hours. At 

that time, the residence was occupied by Levi McDermott 

(hereafter[,] “McDermott”) and his girlfriend, [Appellant]. The 

affidavit of probable cause [also stated] that in March [] 2018, 

subsequent investigation revealed the existence of a bench 

warrant for [Appellant] by Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas 

for her failure to appear relative to numerous violations of the 

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. On March 

14, 2018, the Tunkhannock Borough Police Department, together 

with the affiant of the affidavit of probable cause, attempted to 

execute arrest warrants for McDermott and [Appellant] at the 

residence. Upon arrival, the second-floor lights were observed to 

be on and there was fresh snow on the ground, which revealed no 

[footprints], indicating that [no one had recently departed] the 

residence. The officers repeatedly knocked on the residence, to 

no avail. As such, [the] Tunkhannock Borough Police Officer[s] 

remained close to the residence while the affiant prepared a 

search warrant and search warrant affidavit. A search warrant

was [eventually] obtained[.]

***

[Thereafter,] the affiant[,] with the assistance of Tunkhannock 

Borough Police Department again knocked on the door of the 

residence. [Receiving] no response, the affiant contacted the 

landlord, who opened the front door with a key. However, the 

occupants of the residence [] secured the door with a chain. The 

officers used a bolt cutter to obtain access [and] found [Appellant] 

located in a bedroom of the residence. [Appellant] was taken into 

custody on the bench warrant and placed in the back of a police 

cruiser while [they] executed the search warrant[.] As a result of 

the search[,] officers located numerous knives, hundreds of bags 

of heroin packets, syringes, cash, [and] various cell phones, 

among other things. Based upon the search warrant, [the police 

charged Appellant with drug-related offenses.] 

On April 4, 2018[,] following a preliminary arraignment, bail in the 

matter was set for [$10,000.00] unsecured by Magisterial District 

Judge Carl Smith, with a condition that [Appellant] refrain from 

criminal activity. On or about December 20, 201[8], the 

Commonwealth filed a motion for bail modification which alleged 

that[,] while on bail, [Appellant] admitted to selling heroin to five 

[] people, with some of those deliveries involving Fentanyl and 
J-S22012-20

- 3 -

one of those deliveries resulting in a death[.] [Appellant] did not 

deny the allegations in said motion . . . and[,] as such, [Appellant’s 

bail was reset in the amount of [$1,000,000] by court order dated 

December 20, 2018.

[In April 2019,] another criminal information was filed against 

[Appellant] charging [her] with [multiple] offenses based upon her 

course of conduct between [] October 8, 2018 and [] December 

20, 2018. ... According to the criminal information, [Appellant] 

intentionally delivered [] controlled substance[s], namely

Fentanyl and heroin, to Samantha Delesky[, resulting in] her 

death[.] On August 1, 2019, [Appellant] entered a guilty plea 

agreement wherein she pleaded guilty to drug delivery resulting

in death[. Appellant’s other charges were nolle prossed or 

withdrawn]. 

[Appellant] was sentenced on October 9, 2019 to pay the cost of 

prosecution, pay a fine [of $5,000 and pay $5,498.95 in 

restitution. The trial court also sentenced Appellant to 90 to 240 

months’ incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on 

October 17, 2019, which the trial court denied on October 22, 

2019. This timely appeal followed.2]

Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/19, at 1-4 (superfluous capitalization omitted) 

(footnote added).

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:

Did the sentencing court err in [imposing] an aggravated [range] 

sentence that is clearly unreasonable based upon the stated 

reasoning of the sentencing court?

Appellant’s Brief at 8. 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 8, 2019. On November 13, 

2019, the trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a concise 

statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(1). Appellant timely complied. The trial court issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on December 16, 2019. 
J-S22012-20

- 4 -

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion “when it 

sentenced [her] to an [a]ggravate[d range] sentence” based upon 

“insufficient” reasoning. Id. at 13. Specifically, Appellant claims that her 

aggravated range sentence was clearly unreasonable in view of her many 

expressions of remorse, her issues with opioid addiction, her tandem drug use 

with the victim, and her prior record score of zero.

Appellant’s issue implicates the discretionary aspects of sentencing. As 

this Court previously explained:

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging 

the discretionary aspects of [her] sentence must invoke this 

Court's jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

We conduct a four-part 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. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal 

case citations omitted). 

Herein, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved her challenge 

by filing a post-sentence motion on October 17, 2019, and included a Rule 

2119(f) statement in her appellate brief. Moreover, a claim alleging that the 

trial court offered insufficient reasons to support the imposition of an 

aggravated range sentence raises a substantial question. See 
J-S22012-20

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal 

denied, 13 A.3d 474 (Pa. 2010). Thus, Appellant met the “threshold 

requirements” which enables us to exercise jurisdiction and we may “accept 

the appeal and proceed to the merits.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 

A.3d 867, 870–872 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Our standard of review in sentencing matters is well-settled:

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. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777, 780 (Pa. Super. 2009) 

(citation omitted). Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9781(c) 

and (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides:

The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case 

to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:

(1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the 

sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines 

erroneously;

(2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing 

guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the 

application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable; 

or

(3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing 

guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.
J-S22012-20

- 6 -

In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence 

imposed by the sentencing court.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c). 

In reviewing the record, we consider:

(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.

(4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(d).

Upon review of the certified record, we conclude that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant in the aggravated range. In 

imposing Appellant’s sentence, the trial court relied upon her pre-sentence 

investigation (“PSI”) report. Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/19, at 5. Thus, we 

may presume that the trial court “was aware of relevant information regarding 

[Appellant’s] character and weighed those considerations along with 

mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 

1116-1117, appeal denied, 220 A.3d 1066 (Pa. 2019). In addition, during 

sentencing, the trial court stated the following reason for Appellant’s 

sentence: 

[Appellant] acted in careless disregard for human life and any 

lessor o[f] a sentence would depreciate the seriousness of 

[Appellant’s] actions.
J-S22012-20

- 7 -

Sentencing Hearing, 10/9/19, at 14. Here, the record reflects that the trial 

court considered Appellant’s history of involvement with narcotics,3the impact 

of her criminal activity upon the community and the life of the victim, and the 

justifications for a lengthier sentence to address Appellant’s rehabilitative 

needs in view of the tragic consequences of her behavior. As such, the record 

supports the cogent and persuasive reasons the trial court offered for 

imposing an aggravated range sentence. Accordingly, we perceive no abuse 

of discretion. 

Judgement of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

3

It is undisputed that Appellant’s prior record score was zero. It is also 

undisputed, however, that the events leading up to her guilty plea involved 

significant involvement in drug-related activity. As stated above, prior to 

Appellant’s arrest, preliminary investigation revealed that Luzerne County 

Court of Common Pleas issued a bench warrant after she failed to appear for 

“numerous violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic 

Act.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/16/19, at 2. After Appellant’s arrest, the 

Tunkhannock Borough Police Officers executed a search warrant at the 

residence, which resulted in Appellant being criminally charged with 

possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. 

Then, while Appellant was on bail, she engaged in more drug-related activity, 

which included selling drugs to multiple individuals, resulting in Samantha 

Delesky’s death. Accordingly, despite Appellant’s prior record score of zero, 

it is clear that she has a “history of drug-related [] offenses” that caused the 

trial court to impose a sentence in the aggravated range. Id. at 5. 
J-S22012-20

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/22/2020