J-S13029-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DONNELL RHODES, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1115 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 3, 2019

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0004735-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DONNELL L. RHODES, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1116 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 3, 2019

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0004846-2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DONNELL RHODES, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1117 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 3, 2019

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

No(s): CP-22-CR-0004847-2018
J-S13029-20

- 2 -

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: MAY 18, 2020

In this consolidated appeal,1 Appellant Donnell Rhodes, Jr., appeals from 

the Judgments of Sentence imposed on June 3, 2019, after he entered guilty 

pleas at three different docket numbers to charges of armed Robbery, 

Conspiracy, and other offenses. He challenges the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.

We summarize the underlying facts, gleaned from the Trial Court’s 

Pa.R.A.P. Opinion and the certified record, as follows. In July 2018, Appellant

committed three armed robberies in the City of Harrisburg.

2 On April 22, 2019, 

Appellant entered guilty pleas:

3 specifically, at docket number 4847 CR 2018, 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This Court sua sponte consolidated Appellant’s three appeals on July 31, 

2019.

2 On July 4, 2018, Appellant and two others entered a store and while he 

pointed a gun at the clerk’s head, the other individuals grabbed cigarettes 

from the store. On July 6, 2018, Appellant entered a food market, pointed a 

gun at the woman behind the counter, jumped over the counter, threw the 

woman to the ground, and stood on her. When Appellant noticed a camera, 

he broke it. On July 8, 2018, while driving a stolen car, Appellant got out of 

the car while wearing a mask, pointed a gun at a man who was assisting an 

injured bird, took his cell phone, ordered him to his knees and patted him 

down. When police officers arrested him a short time later, he had the stolen 

phone, keys to the stolen car, a pellet gun, and toy AR-15 guns in the car. 

Appellant was 17 years old at the time of the crimes.

3

In September 2018, Appellant had filed a Petition to decertify the cases for 

transfer to juvenile court but withdrew his Petition on April 22, 2019, when he 

entered his guilty pleas.
J-S13029-20

- 3 -

he pleaded guilty to one count each of Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy (July 

4

th incident);4 at number 4846 CR 2018, he pleaded guilty to one count each 

of Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy (July 6th incident);5 and at number 4735 

CR 2018, Appellant pleaded guilty to Robbery, Receiving Stolen Property, 

Unlawful Possession of an Instrument of Crime, and Simple Assault (July 8th

incident).6

On June 3, 2019, the Court held a sentencing hearing, and imposed an 

aggregate sentence of 5 to 10 years’ incarceration, as follows:

at docket no. 4847, Appellant received identical terms of 3 to 6 

years’ incarceration for the Robbery and Conspiracy convictions,

to be served concurrently; 

at docket no. 4846, Appellant received 2 to 4 years’ incarceration 

for Robbery, to be served consecutive to the sentences imposed 

at 4847; and 2 to 4 years’ incarceration for Conspiracy, to be 

served concurrently with the Robbery sentence; and 

at docket no. 4735, the court imposed 4 to 8 years’ incarceration 

for the Robbery, and 6 to 12 months’ for Receiving Stolen 

Property, each to be served concurrently with the sentences 

imposed at 4846 and 4847. In addition, the court ordered credit 

for time served, and imposed no further penalty for the Possession 

of an Instrument of Crime and Simple Assault.

____________________________________________

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, respectively. 

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, respectively. 

6 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii); 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a); 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a); 18 

Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(3), respectively.
J-S13029-20

- 4 -

Sentencing Order, 6/3/19.

7

On June 13, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Modify Sentence at all 

three dockets, contending the court did not appropriately consider mitigating 

factors before imposing the sentences. The court denied the Motion at each 

docket on July 1, 2019.

Appellant timely appealed.8 Although the trial court did not order a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, it filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, addressing 

its denial of Appellant’s Motions to Modify Sentence.

Appellant raises the following question for our review:

Was the imposition of an aggregate sentence of 5 years to 10 

years clearly unreasonable, so manifestly excessive as to 

constitute an abuse of discretion, and inconsistent with the 

protection of the public, the gravity of the offenses, and 

[Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs?

Appellant’s Br. at 7.

Appellant’s issue presents a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his 

sentences. A challenge to discretionary aspects of a sentence is not 

____________________________________________

7

 The trial court notes that the individual sentences imposed at 4847 and 

4846, are either within or below the mitigated ranges of the Sentencing 

Guidelines; and the sentence at 4735 is within the standard range of the 

Guidelines. Trial Ct. Opinion, dated Aug. 6, 2019, at 4-5.

8 Relevant to this appeal, where a defendant files a timely post-sentence

motion, the notice of appeal from the judgment of sentence shall be filed

within 30 days of the entry of the order deciding the motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 

720(A)(2); Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122, 1126 (Pa. Super. 

2003). Appellant here filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion, which the court 

denied on July 1, 2019. Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on July 10, 2019; 

this Appeal was, thus, timely filed.
J-S13029-20

- 5 -

reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 

73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015). Rather, an appellant challenging the sentencing 

court’s discretion must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely 

notice of appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a postsentence motion; (3) complying with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a 

separate section of the brief setting forth a concise statement of the reasons 

relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects 

of a sentence; and (4) presenting a substantial question that the sentence 

appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9781(b). Id.; Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 

2006).

Here, Appellant timely appealed, challenged the discretionary aspects of 

his sentence in a Post-Sentence Motion,

9 and included a Rule 2119(f)

Statement, essentially contending that the sentence is contrary to the 

fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme and inconsistent with 

the protection of the public. See Appellant’s Brief at 14-15. We, thus, now 

consider whether he has raised a substantial question.

____________________________________________

9

In his Post-Sentence Motion, Appellant averred that the court inadequately 

considered various mitigating factors before imposing sentence. He did not 

specifically challenge the sentencing court’s imposition of consecutive 

sentences, thus Appellant has waived the argument that the imposition of 

consecutive, as opposed to concurrent sentences, was “so manifestly 

excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. See

Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (the failure to raise an issue before the trial court results in 

waiver).
J-S13029-20

- 6 -

Whether a substantial question has been raised is determined on a caseby-case basis. Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 

2010). “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 [that] underlie the sentencing process.” Id.

(citation and quotation omitted).

Generally, where a sentence “falls within the sentencing guidelines, no 

substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v. Maneval, 688 A.2d 1198, 

1199-1200 (Pa. Super. 1997). 

Here, Appellant acknowledges that he received sentences that fell within 

the guidelines.10 He nonetheless avers that the trial court failed to adequately 

consider various mitigating factors. See Appellant’s Br. at 20-21 (contending 

court failed to consider Appellant’s age, his mental health, the abuse and 

neglect he suffered as a child in his mother’s custody and subsequently in 

foster care, and the juvenile probation department’s recommendation, made 

three months prior to the commission of the instant crimes, that Appellant be

released to the custody of his father rather than placed in a secure facility for 

rehabilitation). 

____________________________________________

10 Appellant does not include in his Brief a recitation of what the guidelines 

provided, nor does he acknowledge the trial court’s observation in its Rule 

1925(a) Opinion that his sentences fell either within or below the mitigated 

ranges in two dockets, and within the standard range in the third docket.
J-S13029-20

- 7 -

It is clear from our precedent that Appellant has failed to raise a 

substantial question. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 

936-37 (Pa. Super. 2013) (claim that the trial court failed to consider 

defendant’s rehabilitative needs in imposing standard-range sentences did not 

raise a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Mobley, 581 A.2d 949, 952 

(Pa. Super. 1990) (claim that sentence failed to take into consideration the 

defendant’s rehabilitative needs and was manifestly excessive did not raise a 

substantial question where sentence was within statutory guidelines and 

within sentencing guidelines). See also Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 

A.3d 962, 970 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding that an argument that the 

sentencing court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors in favor of a 

lesser sentence does not present a substantial question appropriate for our 

review); Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1388 (Pa. Super. 

1989) (en banc) (concluding that an allegation that the sentencing court did 

not adequately consider various factors is, in effect, a request that this court 

substitute its judgment for that of the lower court in fashioning a defendant’s 

sentence).

Because Appellant has not raised a substantial question, he has not 

invoked our jurisdiction. We, thus, decline to address the merits of his appeal,

and we affirm the Judgments of Sentence.

Judgments of Sentence affirmed.
J-S13029-20

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/18/2020