J-S04045-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RANDY V. VASQUEZ-BONILLA, 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 548 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 14, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014463-2009, 

MC-51-CR-0024553-2009

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 31, 2017

Randy V. Vasquez Bonilla (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

following revocation of his probation. We vacate judgment of sentence and 

remand for resentencing.

The trial court aptly summarizes the pertinent factual and procedural 

history to this case as follows:

On or about May 30, 2009, [Appellant] was charged with 

Conspiracy under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903 and Possession with Intent to 

Distribute under 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). On June 6, 2010, 

Appellant pled guilty before this Court to both charges and was 

sentenced to two years Intermediate Punishment, followed by 

two years of probation. On or about December 7, 2012, while 

on [the trial] court’s probation, Appellant was charged with 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04045-17

- 2 -

Criminal Attempt – Murder under 18 Pa.C.S. § 901. The victim 

in this case was left in critical condition resulting from 40 stab 

wounds and six slashes across his throat. Appellant and the 

victim were drinking together at a local bar prior to the attack. 

[At] [s]ome point later that evening Appellant accompanied the 

victim back to the victim’s apartment where the attack took 

place. Appellant then robbed the victim of $2,000 and stole his 

vehicle which was later recovered three blocks away from th 

apartment. The vehicle had been set ablaze in an attempt to 

cover up evidence. Appellant pled guilty to Criminal Attempt on 

January 9, 2014, and was sentenced to 10 to 20 years of 

confinement plus five years of probation. As a result[, the trial 

court] found Appellant in direct violation of its probation . . . 

and, on January 14, 2016, sentenced him to a term of 20 to 40 

years, to be served consecutively to his sentence for Criminal 

Attempt.

Trial Court Opinion, filed June 29, 2016, at 1-2.1

Appellant, represented by counsel at his revocation sentencing 

hearing, offered no oral objection to the court’s imposition of sentence but 

filed a post-sentence motion asserting baldly that “[t]he sentence imposed 

was the maximum allowed by law and is above the aggravated range of the 

____________________________________________

1 The aggregate revocation sentence of incarceration was 30 to 60 years, 

which comprised two 10 to 20 year sentences for PWID and Conspiracy 

convictions docketed under CP-51-CR-0014463-2009 and one 10 to 20 year 

sentence for a PWID conviction docketed under CP-51-CR-0012266-2009. 

See VOP Hearing, 1/14/16 at 29. It appears that the trial court alludes 

exclusively to the sentences at CP-51-CR-0014463-2009 because Appellant 

limited his post-sentence motion and notice of appeal to the sentences under 

this bill number, alone. As the record reveals that only two of Appellant’s 

three judgments of sentence were appealed, we lack jurisdiction to review 

the revocation sentence imposed at CP-51-CR-0012266-2009. See 

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 99 A.3d 577, 579 (Pa.Super. 2014) (holding 

where bill of information not included in notice of appeal, no appeal was filed 

from judgment of sentence at that number, depriving court of jurisdiction to 

grant relief at that number); see also Commonwealth v. Garwood, 466 

A.2d 1086, 1087 (Pa.Super. 1983)). 
J-S04045-17

- 3 -

Sentencing Guidelines and extremely excessive.” See Appellant’s “Motion to 

Reconsider VOP Sentence,” filed 1/21/16. On January 27, 2016, the trial 

court entered an order denying Appellant’s motion without a hearing. 

On February 3, 2016, the trial court granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and appointed present counsel to represent Appellant in Forma 

Pauperis. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

WHETHER THE VIOLATION OF PROBATION (VOP) COURT’S 

SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) TO FORTY (40) YEARS 

INCARCERATION CONSECUTIVE TO AN UNRELATED SENTENCE 

VIOLATED Pa.R.Crim.P. § 702 and Pa.C.S. § 9721(b), 

CONSTITUTING AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

Appellant’s brief at 3.

“Generally, in reviewing an appeal from a judgment of sentence 

imposed after the revocation of probation, this Court's scope of review 

includes the validity of the hearing, the legality of the final sentence, and if 

properly raised, the discretionary aspects of the appellant's sentence.” 

Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559, 563 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 893 A.2d 735, 737 (Pa. Super. 2006)). See

also Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1034 (Pa.Super. 2013) 

(en banc) (holding our “scope of review in an appeal from a revocation 

sentencing includes discretionary sentencing challenges.”).

Revocation of a probation sentence is a matter committed to the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and that court's decision will not be disturbed on 

appeal in the absence of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. 
J-S04045-17

- 4 -

Commonwealth v. McNeal, 120 A.3d 313, 322 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). “An abuse of discretion is more than 

an error in judgment—a sentencing court has not abused its discretion 

unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” 

Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa.Super. 2014). 

In Appellant’s counseled brief, he argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion in imposing an aggregate sentence of 20 to 40 years’ 

incarceration, consecutive to his 10 to 20 year sentence for attempted 

murder, without considering the particular circumstances of the offense and 

Appellant’s character as required under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). See

Appellant’s brief at 6. As Appellant’s issue challenges the discretionary 

aspects of his sentence, there is no impediment to our review. “The 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). 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 we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. 

Super. 2010):

An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence must invoke this Court's jurisdiction by satisfying a 

four-part test:
J-S04045-17

- 5 -

[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]; (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).

Id. at 170 (citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 

2006)). 

Here, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and notice of 

appeal. He also filed a brief containing a proper Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement 

of the reasons relied upon for appealing the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. However, the specific claims raised in his Rule 2119(f) statement 

are unpreserved for our review, as they differ from the bald allegations 

raised in his post-sentence motion.2

Specifically, Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement contends that the 

court failed to consider “the particular circumstances of the offense and the 

character of the defendant” pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). See

Appellant’s brief at 5. He elaborates on these themes on the next page of 

his brief, which we elect to construe as an extension of his Rule 2119(f) 

statement.3 Prior counsel, however, raised none of these issues in 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant raised no sentencing issues at his sentencing hearing.

3 On page 6 of Appellant’s brief, under the heading “Argument on the 

Merits,” Appellant argues:

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S04045-17

- 6 -

Appellant’s post-sentence motion. Therefore, Appellant has failed to 

preserve any of the specific discretionary aspects of sentencing claims 

contained in his brief to this Court. See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 

A.2d 788 (Pa.Super. 2003) (stating issues that challenge discretionary 

aspects of sentencing are generally waived if they are not raised during 

sentencing proceedings or in post-sentence motion); Accord 

Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa. Super. 2012). See 

also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-93 (Pa.Super. 2001) 

(finding waiver where appellant “did not give the sentencing judge an 

opportunity to reconsider or modify sentence” on any of the bases that 

Appellant currently argues on appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised 

in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on 

appeal”).4

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

In Appellant’s case the court focused on the actions in the 

unrelated prior convictions, and neglected to take into [sic] the 

other factors in § 9721(b). The sentencing court did not take 

into consideration Appellant’s background, remorse, explanation 

of the direct violation, and whether Appellant could be 

rehabilitated and imposed the maximum sentence allowed by 

statute on the violation of probation. Thus, the sentence 

imposed was unreasonable and excessive and as such should be 

vacated.”

Appellant’s brief at 6.

4 Correspondingly, Appellant’s post-sentence issues that his sentences 

represented the maximum prescribed under the law, failed to conform to 

sentencing guidelines, and were “exceedingly excessive” have been 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S04045-17

- 7 -

Finally, we address the Commonwealth’s stated position that the trial 

court imposed an illegal revocation sentence to the extent it applied the 

recidivist statute at 35 P.S. § 780-115,5 which doubles the statutory 

maximum penalty for PWID upon proof of a prior conviction for a similar 

offense, to Appellant’s revocation sentence for Conspiracy to commit PWID. 

Indeed, this Court has held that the sentencing enhancement at Section 

780-115 does not apply to a conviction for conspiracy to commit PWID. See 

Commonwealth v. Young, 922 A.2d 913, 918 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding 

restrictive language in statute specifically empowers court to double 

sentence for subsequent drug conviction; enhancement not applicable to 

conspiracy conviction attending subsequent drug conviction). 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

abandoned in the present appeal. Even if Appellant had presented them 

herein, this Court has declined to discern a substantial question from either 

a claim that a revocation sentence deviated from sentencing guidelines, see

Commonwealth v. Williams, 69 A.3d 735, 741 (Pa.Super. 2013) (holding 

sentencing guidelines do not apply to sentences imposed as a result of 

probation or parole revocations), or a bald claim that a sentence within 

statutory limits is excessive. See Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 

188, 201-03 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding bald allegations of excessiveness 

insufficient to permit discretionary review).

5

 35 P.S. § 780-115(a) provides:

Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under 

clause (30) of subsection (a) of section 13 of this act [35 P.S. § 

113] or of a similar offense under any statute of the United 

States or of any state may be imprisoned for a term up to twice 

the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that 

otherwise authorized, or both.

35 P.S. § 780-115(a).
J-S04045-17

- 8 -

Appellant has not raised this issue, but legality of a sentence is a 

nonwaivable issue and may be raised at any time or sua sponte by this 

Court. Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 118 (Pa.Super. 2013). 

Reviewing the record in light of Young, we agree with the Commonwealth 

that the trial court erroneously applied the sentencing enhancement statute 

to Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy, and that the resulting sentence of 

10 to 20 years’ incarceration exceeded the statutory maximum penalty of 10 

years. See 35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(1.1). Accordingly, we vacate judgment of 

sentence and remand to the trial court for resentencing.6

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for proceedings 

consistent with this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/31/2017

____________________________________________

6 Since the sentence for conspiracy was imposed consecutive to the sentence 

for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and marijuana, our decision 

here disturbs the trial court's sentencing plan. Thus, we are compelled to 

vacate the entire sentence and remand for resentencing. See Young, 922 

A.2d at 918 n. 9.