J-S38013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SAMIYA T. BROWN, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2322 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 26, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0000774-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2023

Samiya T. Brown appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after pleading guilty to thirddegree murder,1 endangering the welfare of children (EWOC),2 and possession 

of an instrument of crime (PIC).3 On July 26, 2022, the trial court sentenced 

Brown to consecutive terms of 20 to 40 years’ incarceration for third-degree 

murder and 10 to 20 years’ incarceration for EWOC, the statutory maximum 

for each offense, and no further penalty for PIC. Brown filed a timely notice 

of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c).

2 Id. at § 4304(a)(1).

3 Id. at § 907(a).
J-S38013-23

- 2 -

complained of on appeal. After careful review, we vacate Brown’s judgment 

of sentence and remand for resentencing.

On appeal, Brown claims that the trial court erred by imposing a 

statutory maximum sentence without indicating an awareness of the 

sentencing guidelines, without placing the guidelines on the record, without 

considering Brown’s rehabilitative needs, and by imposing an excessive 

sentence where the court ran the sentences consecutively.4 See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 3. The Commonwealth agrees that the trial court failed to mention

the sentencing guidelines and place on the record the court’s reasons for its

upwards deviation from them. See Appellee’s Brief, at 2.

The Sentencing Code requires that the trial court consider the 

sentencing guidelines, and “make as a part of the record, and disclose in open 

court at the time of sentencing, a statement of the reason or reasons for the 

sentence imposed.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). Moreover, when a trial court 

imposes a sentence outside the guidelines, a judge “must set forth on the 

record, at sentencing, in the defendant’s presence, the permissible range of 

sentences under the guidelines and, at least in summary form, the factual 

basis and specific reasons which compelled the court to deviate from the 

sentencing range.” Commonwealth v. Royer, 476 A.2d 453, 458 (Pa. 

Super. 1984) (emphasis added). “Failure to comply shall be grounds for 

____________________________________________

4 We need not reach Brown’s excessive sentencing claim as we are vacating 

Brown’s judgment of sentence and remanding for resentencing. See

Commonwealth v. Beatty, 227 A.3d 1277, 1282 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2020).
J-S38013-23

- 3 -

vacating the sentence . . . and resentencing the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

9721(b). 

Here, the sentencing transcript reveals that the sentencing court failed 

to set forth, in Brown’s presence, the permissible range of sentences she could 

receive under the guidelines, nor did the sentencing judge mention the 

guidelines at any point during Brown’s sentencing proceeding. At the outset 

of sentencing, the sentencing court stated the counts at issue and that Brown’s 

prior record score was zero. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 7/26/22, at 5. 

When issuing Brown’s sentence, the trial court stated: 

[T]his sentence that the Court is going to impose today is going 

to be on the upper end of the allowable sentence in this matter.

[D]espite the . . . psycho[-]social report, that was provided by the 

defense, the [c]ourt believes that the actions of Ms. Brown [do]

show wickedness of heart. It is such that the [c]ourt’s intention is 

to limit the possibility of her having access to other children as 

she goes forward. 

On the charge of murder in the third-degree, the [c]ourt is going 

to impose the maximum sentence of 20 to 40 years.

On the charge of [EWOC], the [c]ourt will impose . . . the 

maximum sentence there, which is 10 to 20 years.

On the charge of [PIC], the [c]ourt will impose no further

[penalty].

So the sentence that is imposed here is 30 to 60 years to be 

served in a state correctional institution. 

Id. at 62-63.
J-S38013-23

- 4 -

The court failed to mention the existence of a pre-sentence investigative 

report (PSI),

5 and whether the court had reviewed same, only referencing a 

psycho-social report provided by Brown. See id. Nowhere did the court 

indicate what the applicable guideline ranges were, that it considered the 

guidelines, that it was sentencing Brown outside the guidelines, or provide a 

statement of its reasons for such deviation. Accordingly, we are constrained 

to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for sentencing in accordance 

with the Sentencing Code. See Royer, supra; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Date: 11/30/2023

____________________________________________

5 See N.T. Guilty Plea Hearing, 5/19/22, at 24 (ordering PSI and mental health 

reports prior to sentencing).