J-S03026-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LUKE TOBIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3503 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 5, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000522-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 28, 2018

Luke Tobin appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his nolo contendere

plea. Appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of his sentence. However, 

as Appellant has failed to preserve this challenge for our review, we summarily 

affirm.

After entering a nolo contendere plea to a single count of persons not to 

possess firearms,1the court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years’ 

imprisonment on October 5, 2016. Immediately following sentencing, 

Appellant asked the court to reconsider imposing a mitigated range sentence 

of four years’ imprisonment. The court denied this request. On November 1, 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. 
J-S03026-18

- 2 -

2016, Appellant filed an “amended” post-sentence motion challenging the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. This motion was also denied. Appellant’s 

timely appeal follows. 

On appeal, Appellant argues that the court ignored his individual and 

rehabilitative needs and relied upon impermissible factors when fashioning his 

manifestly excessive sentence. Appellant concedes this claim challenges the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence. 

“A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be 

considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a 

claim is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (citation omitted). 

An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his 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. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal 

defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there 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. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation 

omitted; brackets in original).

The Commonwealth contends that Appellant cannot challenge the 

discretionary aspects of his sentence because he failed to preserve these 

challenges in a timely post-sentence motion. Conversely, Appellant claims that
J-S03026-18

- 3 -

because Rule 720(B)(1)(b) allows him to file a supplemental post-sentence 

motion, any challenges to the discretionary aspect of his sentence issues 

raised in his “amended” post-sentence motion are preserved for appeal.

Appellant advances a novel argument. But its novelty runs smack into 

established law. The ability to file supplemental post-sentence motions does 

not remove the requirement of filing written post-sentence motions within ten 

days of imposition of sentence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1). Appellant’s 

amended post-sentence motion, filed twenty-seven days after imposition of 

sentence, is patently untimely. Therefore, the Commonwealth is correct in 

noting that the challenges to the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence 

raised in his amended post-sentence motion are not preserved. See

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 719 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“An 

untimely post-sentence motion does not preserve issues for appeal.”) As 

Appellant has not preserved this issue for our review, and has challenged no 

other aspects of his sentence on appeal, we affirm.2

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s oral post-sentence motion regarding the trial court’s failure to 

pursue a mitigated range sentence was properly preserved; however, 

Appellant abandoned that claim on appeal. Therefore, we will not address this 

claim. 
J-S03026-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/28/18