J-S25009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SEAN P. MCCAUSLAND 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2414 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 16, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0001046-2016

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

Appellant Sean P. McCausland appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following the revocation of his probation. Appellant challenges the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence and contends that the trial court abused 

its discretion imposing a sentence of total confinement. Following our review, 

we affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

matter as follows:

On March 17, 2017, [Appellant] was found guilty of robbery, 

conspiracy, possessing an instrument of crime [(PIC)], and 

recklessly endangering another person [(REAP)] following a 

waiver trial[.] On June 16, 2017, Appellant was sentenced to an 

aggregate term of three (3) to six (6) years of state incarceration 

followed by an aggregate term of nine (9) years of probation.[FN1] 

No appeal was taken.

[FN1] On the robbery conviction, Appellant was sentenced to 

three (3) to six (6) years of incarceration followed by four 

(4) years of probation; on the conspiracy conviction, a 
J-S25009-23

- 2 -

concurrent sentence of three (3) to six (6) years of 

incarceration followed by four (4) years of probation. A 

consecutive term of five (5) years of probation was imposed 

on the possessing an instrument of crime conviction and a 

concurrent term of two (2) years on probation was imposed 

on the recklessly endangering another person conviction.

On May 7, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se [PCRA petition] seeking 

reinstatement of his appellate rights. Stephen A. Seidel, Esquire, 

was appointed counsel on behalf of Appellant. On February 19, 

2019, Appellant withdrew his petition for post-conviction relief and 

Mr. Seidel was permitted to withdraw as counsel. 

After completing his sentence of incarceration and while on 

probation, on April 20, 2022, Appellant was arrested and was 

charged with simple assault as a misdemeanor docketed under 

MC-51-CR-0006406-2022. Shortly thereafter, [the trial] court 

was notified of Appellant’s possible [probation] violations. 

Following a hearing on June 7, 2022, [the trial court] found 

Appellant to be in violation of probation.[1] Sentencing was 

____________________________________________

1

In Commonwealth v. Foster, 214 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2019), our Supreme 

Court examined the statutory framework governing probation revocations and 

concluded that “a court may find a defendant in violation of probation only if 

the defendant has violated one of the specific conditions of probation included 

in the probation order or has committed a new crime.” Id. at 1250; see also 

Commonwealth v. Koger, 295 A.3d 699 (Pa. 2023); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b). 

“To insure that general condition is met, or to assist the defendant in meeting 

that general condition, the order must also include certain “specific conditions”

of probation. Foster, at 1250; see also Koger, 295 A.3d at 705; 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9763. 

Only upon the violation of any of the specified conditions in the 

probation order (general or specific) may a court revoke the 

defendant’s probation. In other words, a court may find a 

defendant in violation of probation only if the defendant has 

violated one of the specific conditions of probation included in the 

probation order or has committed a new crime. The plain 

language of the statute does not allow for any other result. 

Foster, 214 A.3d at 1250 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, 

however, Appellant does not challenge the finding of a probation violation or 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S25009-23

- 3 -

deferred pending the completion of a pre-sentence report and a 

mental health evaluation. Appellant was given an aggregate 

sentence of four (4) to eight (8) years of incarceration. All 

previous sentencing conditions were again imposed. Appellant 

filed a motion to reconsider sentencing, which was denied on 

August 24, 2022. . . .

Trial Ct. Op., 1/25/23, at 2 (some formatting altered). Appellant filed a timely 

appeal, and both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

Whether the trial court erred by imposing an “excessive sentence”

violating the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9701 et. 

seq. by not following the general principle that the sentence 

imposed should call for 1) confinement consistent with the 

protection of the public, 2) the gravity of the offense as it relates 

to the impact on the life of the victim; and 3) the rehabilitative 

needs of the defendant, and amounted to a[n] abuse of discretion. 

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(B)?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

Specifically, Appellant argues that he was amenable to treatment, and the 

trial court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs. Id. at 9-10. Appellant

also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a 

manifestly excessive sentence of four to eight years of incarceration rather 

than rehabilitation in an in-patient drug abuse treatment facility. Id. at 7-11.

____________________________________________

the revocation of his probation, and the record reflects that Appellant 

stipulated to violating the terms of his probation. See N.T., 6/7/22, at 14-18. 

Appellant challenges only the sentence imposed following the revocation of 

probation.
J-S25009-23

- 4 -

The Commonwealth responds that Appellant has not identified a 

substantial question for review. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 8. Further, the 

Commonwealth contends that even if Appellant raised a substantial question, 

he is not entitled to relief because the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in sentencing Appellant to total confinement as Appellant has failed at all prior 

rehabilitative efforts. See id. at 9. The Commonwealth argues that the trial 

court considered all relevant sentencing factors, including Appellant’s 

rehabilitative needs, and was informed by a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) 

report. Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-9. 

As noted previously, Appellant’s issues implicate the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence. This Court has held that “[t]he right to appellate 

review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute[.]” 

Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations 

omitted). Rather, where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of 

a sentence, the appeal should be considered a petition for allowance of appeal. 

Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr., 932 A.2d 155, 163 (Pa. Super. 2007).

As this Court explained in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 

(Pa. Super. 2010), an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

[W]e 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. [708(E)]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal 

defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial 
J-S25009-23

- 5 -

question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under 

the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b).

Id. at 170 (formatting altered and citation omitted).

The determination of whether there is a substantial question is made on 

a case-by-case basis, and this Court will grant the appeal 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 which underlie the sentencing 

process. Id. Further, this Court “cannot look beyond the statement of 

questions presented and the prefatory Rule 2119(f) statement to determine 

whether a substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v. Conklin, 275 

A.3d 1087, 1094 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

In the instant case, Appellant filed a timely motion to reconsider his 

sentence, a timely appeal, and has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his 

appellate brief. Accordingly, Appellant is in technical compliance with the 

requirements to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence, therefore, 

we will proceed to determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial 

question. See id.

In his brief, Appellant asserts:

The trial court erred by imposing an “excessive sentence” violating 

the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9701 et. seq. by 

not following the general principle that the sentence imposed 

should call for 1) confinement consistent with the protection of the

public, 2) the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on 

the life of the victim; and 3) the rehabilitative needs of the 

defendant, and amounted to a[n] abuse of discretion. See 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). The sentence imposed was unreasonable and 
J-S25009-23

- 6 -

pursuant to the Pennsylvania Sentencing Code, in that total 

confinement for a period of 4 years to 8 years is an excessive

sentence. [Appellant] is “amenable to drug treatment” and 

vocational training, and rehabilitation.

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (Rule 2119(f) Statement) (some formatting altered).

“This Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate 

consideration of rehabilitative needs does not raise a substantial question for 

our review.” Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358, 375 (Pa. Super. 

2020) (citation omitted). “Similarly, an allegation that a sentencing court 

failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain mitigating factors 

does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, “[a]n argument that the sentencing court 

failed to consider mitigating factors in favor of a lesser sentence does not 

present a substantial question appropriate for our review.” Commonwealth 

v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088, 1094 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1388 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en 

banc) (noting 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) 

(some citations omitted).

Here, Appellant argues that the trial court did not adequately consider 

mitigating factors in favor of a lesser sentence. As such, Appellant has not 
J-S25009-23

- 7 -

raised a substantial question for our review.2 See Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 

at 1094; Moury, 992 A.2d at 170. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to 

relief, and we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: October 11, 2023

____________________________________________

2

In any event, the trial court provided detailed reasoning for the sentence it 

imposed. The trial court included a thorough discussion stating its rationale 

for the revocation sentence, its consideration of the PSI report, and recitation 

of its considerations from the sentencing hearing including Appellant’s 

repeated failures at rehabilitation, and it concluded that Appellant was a highrisk recidivist and danger to the community. See Trial Ct. Op., 1/25/23, at 

6-17. Indeed, were we to reach the merits of Appellant’s challenge to the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence, we would affirm on the basis of the trial 

court opinion. See id.