J-S30004-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JORGE LUIS GOMEZ, III

Appellant No. 485 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 6, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0001237-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 07, 2018

Appellant, Jorge Luis Gomez, III, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

of an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration, imposed after a jury 

convicted him of involuntary manslaughter and related offenses. After review, 

we affirm.

The trial court set forth a detailed factual and procedural history of 

Appellant’s case, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court 

Opinion (TCO), 6/9/17, at 1-6. On appeal, Appellant raises four issues for our 

review:

1. Whether, inasmuch as ... [A]ppellant properly raised the 

justifiable use of force for protection of the person pursuant to 

18 Pa.C.S. § 505, the evidence at trial pertaining to the 

offenses of involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S30004-18

- 2 -

causing serious bodily injury, and aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon did not suffice, since the Commonwealth did 

not satisfy its burden of proof as required by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 

so that acquittal of said offenses is required and that, as a 

consequence of such acquittal, ... [A]ppellant “[]has not 

committed any other criminal violation[]” as contemplated by 

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(2), and by operation of the limiting 

proviso of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1), requiring a change to a 

violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(2) graded as a misdemeanor 

of the first degree?

2. Whether, as a result of the not guilty verdict on the offense of 

third-degree murder in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c), so 

finding that [Appellant] did not act with the requisite malice, 

such not guilty verdict of third-degree murder and the guilty 

verdict of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury in 

violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1), requiring malice, are 

irrevocably inconsistent?

[3]. Whether, inasmuch as the greater weight of the evidence at 

trial in the above[-]captioned action demonstrated that ... 

[A]ppellant lacked the necessary mens rea of malice for 

conviction of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, 

the recklessness or gross negligence for involuntary 

manslaughter did not amount to the malice necessary for 

conviction of the offense of aggravated assault causing serious 

bodily injury, the victim precipitated the fatal incident by his 

acts and/or omissions, and, under the facts and circumstances, 

[Appellant] could not have avoided using deadly force by 

retreating with complete safety, the guilty verdict on 

involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault causing serious 

bodily injury, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon 

contravened the greater weight of the evidence, which should 

have shocked the juridical conscience?

4. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion in imposing an 

aggregated sentence of not less than ten years nor more than 

twenty years inasmuch as said sentence was manifestly 

excessive in that it warehoused ... [A]ppellant, failed to address 

[his] rehabilitative needs, and focused on punishment to the 

exclusion of rehabilitation, and was unreasonable in imposing 

consecutive sentences for involuntary manslaughter and 

aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury for the same 

facts and conduct, which, under the circumstances of the case, 
J-S30004-18

- 3 -

constituted double punishment, resulting in a clearly 

unreasonable application of the Sentencing Guidelines?

Appellant’s Brief at 8-9 (unnecessary emphasis omitted).

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the 

applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough opinion of the 

Honorable Elizabeth A. Doyle of the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County. 

We conclude that Judge Doyle’s extensive, well-reasoned opinion accurately 

disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. See TCO at 9-14 (rejecting 

Appellant’s first issue, in which he argues that the Commonwealth failed to 

disprove his assertion of self-defense); Id. at 14-18 (rejecting Appellant’s 

second issue, in which he contends it was irreconcilably inconsistent for the 

jury to acquit him of third-degree murder, yet convict him of aggravated 

assault and involuntary manslaughter); Id. at 18-22 (rejecting Appellant’s 

third issue, in which he avers that the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence); Id. at 6-9 (rejecting Appellant’s fourth issue, in which he 

challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence). Accordingly, we adopt 

the above-cited portions of Judge Doyle’s opinion as our own,

1 and affirm 

Appellant’s judgment of sentence on that basis.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

1 Judge Doyle addresses ten additional issues in her opinion, which Appellant 

has not asserted on appeal. See TCO at 22-39. We do not adopt any aspect 

of the court’s rationale regarding those waived issues.
J-S30004-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/07/2018