J-S65026-16

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

EARL L. LINT, JR.,

Appellant No. 166 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 20, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001669-2015

BEFORE: LAZARUS, OLSON AND PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2016

Appellant, Earl L. Lint, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on January 20, 2016, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s 

post-sentence motion on January 26, 2016. We affirm.

A jury found Appellant guilty of one count of forgery and two counts of 

receiving stolen property.1 On January 20, 2016, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to serve a term of 12 to 60 months in prison for the forgery 

conviction.2 The sentence fell within the aggravated range of the sentencing 

guidelines. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/20/16, at 4. Further, during the 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4101(a)(2) and 3925(a), respectively.

2 The trial court imposed no further penalty on the receiving stolen property 

convictions.
J-S65026-16

- 2 -

sentencing hearing, the trial court explained the reasons why it sentenced 

Appellant in the aggravated range. As the trial court declared:

We’ve imposed this sentence in the aggravated range as the 

standard range is less than [12] months and we’ve done so 

due to the failure of prior rehabilitative efforts on behalf of 

[Appellant], him having at least five prior theft related 

offenses. We’ve also sentenced in the aggravated range 

because this offense was committed while [Appellant] was 

on parole for a theft offense. 

[Appellant], we’ve taken into consideration the nature of 

this offense, the seriousness of forgery, a felony of the 

second degree, punishable by a term of imprisonment of up 

to [10] years and a fine of up to $25,000.00. We’ve 

considered the number of offenses to which you’ve been 

found guilty. We’ve considered a presentence report 

prepared by the Adult Probation office. We’ve considered 

your prior record, your rehabilitative needs and the gravity 

of this offense and we feel a lesser sentence would 

depreciate from the seriousness of this crime. The [trial] 

court feels you are in need of correctional treatment that 

could be provided most effectively by your commitment to 

an institution.

N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/20/16, at 4-5.

On January 21, 2016, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, 

wherein Appellant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion at 

sentencing because: the “sentence is harsh, severe, and excessive in view 

of the circumstances surrounding this matter” and because “the Court stated 

no articulate reasons for sentencing [Appellant] in the aggravated range of 

the guidelines.” Appellant’s Post-Sentence Motion, 1/21/16, at 1. The trial 

court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on January 26, 2016 and 
J-S65026-16

- 3 -

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant raises one 

claim:

Whether or not the sentence of [one to five years,] imposed 

by the trial court[,] was excessive considering the 

circumstances of the case?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.3

Appellant’s claim on appeal is a challenge to the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence. “[S]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of 

the sentencing judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse 

of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. 

Super. 2001). Moreover, pursuant to statute, Appellant does not have an 

automatic right to appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Instead, Appellant must petition this Court for 

permission to appeal the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Id.

As this Court explained:

[t]o reach the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue, we 

conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether 

appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 902, 

903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at 

sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant’s brief 

has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there 

____________________________________________

3 The trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925(b). Appellant complied with the order and, within his Rule 

1925(b) statement, Appellant listed the same issue he currently raises on 

appeal. See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 2/5/16, at 1.
J-S65026-16

- 4 -

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. Cook, 941 A.2d 7, 11 (Pa. Super. 2007).

In the case at bar, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and 

notice of appeal. Moreover, while Appellant’s brief does not contain “a 

concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with 

respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence,” the Commonwealth 

failed to object to the omission. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Therefore, this 

Court “may ignore the omission and determine if there is a substantial 

question that the sentence imposed was not appropriate.” Commonwealth 

v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2004).

Within Appellant’s post-sentence motion, Appellant claimed that the 

trial court abused its discretion at sentencing because: the “sentence is 

harsh, severe, and excessive in view of the circumstances surrounding this 

matter” and because “the Court stated no articulate reasons for sentencing 

[Appellant] in the aggravated range of the guidelines.” Appellant’s PostSentence Motion, 1/21/16, at 1.4

 See Appellant’s Post-Sentence Motion, 

____________________________________________

4 Within Appellant’s brief to this Court, Appellant also argues that the trial 

court relied upon impermissible factors when sentencing Appellant to an 

aggravated range sentence. See Appellant’s Brief at 11-12. This claim is 

waived, as Appellant failed to raise the claim at sentencing, in his postsentence motion, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, or in his Rule 2116 

“statement of questions involved.” Commonwealth v. Losch, 535 A.2d 

115, 118 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1987) (“[a]n objection to a discretionary aspect of

a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing 

nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing”) 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S65026-16

- 5 -

1/21/16, at 1. Appellant has not raised the latter claim on appeal. Further, 

within Appellant’s post-sentence motion and Rule 1925(b) statement, 

Appellant identified no particular “circumstances surrounding this matter” 

that, allegedly, caused his sentence to be excessive. See id. Moreover, the 

trial court apparently did not understand Appellant’s claim, as the trial court 

did not identify or discuss any such “circumstances” in its opinion to this 

Court. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/8/16, at 1-4. 

As this Court has explained:

An appellant's concise statement must properly specify the 

error to be addressed on appeal. In other words, the Rule 

1925(b) statement must be specific enough for the trial 

court to identify and address the issue an appellant wishes 

to raise on appeal. A concise statement which is too vague 

to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is 

the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all. The 

court's review and legal analysis can be fatally impaired 

when the court has to guess at the issues raised. Thus, if a 

concise statement is too vague, the court may find waiver.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011) (internal 

quotations, citations, and corrections omitted).

In the case at bar, Appellant’s bald claim of excessiveness in both his 

post-sentence motion and Rule 1925(b) statement was “too vague to allow 

the [trial] court to identify the issues raised on appeal.” See id. Therefore, 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

(internal quotations and citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) 

(“[i]ssues not included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement . . . are waived”); 

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the 

statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”).
J-S65026-16

- 6 -

Appellant’s discretionary aspect of sentencing claim is waived on appeal.5 

Id.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2016

____________________________________________

5 We note that, even if Appellant had not waived his current claim on appeal, 

we would conclude that Appellant’s claim does not raise a substantial claim 

that his sentence was inappropriate under the Sentencing Code. Within 

Appellant’s brief to this Court, Appellant claims that his aggravated range 

sentence is excessive solely because his forgery conviction was “for a check 

that was $580.00 in value.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. Appellant’s claim does 

not raise a substantial question, as it does not raise a “plausible argument 

that [the] sentence is contrary to the Sentencing Code or the fundamental 

norms underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 

A.2d 251, 255 (Pa. Super. 2003). To be sure, the trial court was well aware 

of the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s forgery conviction and of the 

monetary amount Appellant attempted to steal. In sentencing Appellant to 

an aggravated range sentence, the trial court weighed the “monetary 

amount” Appellant attempted to steal with the other circumstances of the 

case, including the fact that Appellant continues to commit theft offenses 

despite having numerous criminal convictions for such offenses and the fact 

that Appellant was on parole at the time he committed the current forgery 

offense. N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/20/16, at 4-5. Appellant’s claim merely

focuses upon one particular factor of his crime – the amount of money he 

attempted to steal – to the exclusion of everything else. This does not raise 

a substantial question that Appellant’s sentence is inappropriate under the 

Sentencing Code.