J-S35023-22

2023 PA Super 19

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DANIELLE SNYDER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 116 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 24, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-67-CR-0004865-2020

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

OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2023

Danielle Snyder appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following her open guilty plea to aggravated assault. She argues the court 

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm.

On September 3, 2020, Snyder and the victim were involved in a road 

rage incident. The victim was traveling north along Interstate 83 in York 

County approaching a one-lane construction zone when Snyder cut her off. 

The victim flashed her high beams at Snyder. Snyder later told police that the 

victim began to tailgate her so she “brake checked” the victim. When the 

construction pattern ended, the victim merged into the right lane and passed

Snyder. When she attempted to merge back into the left lane in front of 

Snyder, Snyder quickly accelerated causing the two cars to collide. After the 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35023-22

- 2 -

impact, both Snyder and the victim pulled over to the right shoulder of the 

highway. 

The victim got out of her car and approached Snyder’s vehicle. An 

argument ensued and Snyder retrieved a knife from her car and stabbed the 

victim three times in the abdomen. She then fled the scene in her car. The 

victim attempted to flag down passing motorists for help, but no one stopped. 

The victim then got into her vehicle and drove herself to a nearby gas station.

Five days after the incident, the police located Snyder at her residence. 

Snyder admitted that she stabbed the victim because she was angry and 

wanted to teach her a lesson. Snyder also told the police that she hid her 

vehicle in her garage to prevent it from being seen and threw away the knife

that was used to stab the victim.

Snyder was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault

and one count each of possession of instruments of crime, tampering with or 

fabricating physical evidence, attempted murder, and accidents involving 

damage to attended vehicle or property.

1 Snyder entered an open guilty plea 

to one count of aggravated assault. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(4).

At sentencing, the Commonwealth argued for a sentence at the higher

end of the standard range, which was 12 to 18 months. N.T. Sentencing, 

11/24/21, at 13. It recognized that the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report 

(“PSI”) and psychological evaluation indicated that Snyder had been 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2702(a)(4), 907(a), 4910(1), 901(a), 2502(a), 

and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3743(a), respectively. 
J-S35023-22

- 3 -

diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which impacted her ability to control her 

impulses. Id. at 12. However, the Commonwealth maintained that Snyder 

was a danger to society because she stabbed a stranger as a result of a minor 

traffic accident, failed to call for help, fled the scene, and hid evidence. Id. at 

13. The Commonwealth pointed out that Snyder was initially charged with 

attempted murder and was on supervision from previous charges at the time 

of the incident. Id. at 14. 

The victim testified that she has been greatly affected by Snyder’s

actions and that it took her two and a half to three months to physically heal 

from the stabbing. Id. at 15. She stated that she still suffers from emotional 

harm because she must travel the same route to work where the incident 

occurred. Id. The victim indicated that she felt helpless when she tried to flag 

down help and no one stopped. She said, “I just held on to my side and just 

got in my vehicle and just drove to the [gas station] ’cause I didn’t want to 

die.” Id.

Snyder presented a letter to the court and testified that she was very 

remorseful for her actions. Id. at 29-30. She further explained, “I just know 

that there were significant things done on the other’s half as well that I know 

triggered the response that I did. But it was not a response I wanted.” Id. at 

30. She emphasized that her psychological evaluation indicated that her 

bipolar disorder was a significant contributing factor to the event. Id. at 25.

Snyder maintained that she did not have a history of violence and her actions 

were the result of her “impulsiveness, poor judgment, and significant acute 
J-S35023-22

- 4 -

stress that happened as a result of this confrontation[.]” Id. at 24, 26. She 

emphasized that she was actively in treatment for her mental health issues at 

the time of the incident. Id. at 22. Snyder also gave the court a forensic 

psychiatric evaluation performed by Dr. Steven Erickson. 

Before imposing Snyder’s sentence, the court stated:

The [c]ourt has considered all of the information that was 

presented today, the information previously submitted by 

the defense, the statements, both written and oral, of Miss 

Snyder, the evaluation and CV of Dr. Erickson, evidence 

presented by the Commonwealth, the statement of the 

victim, all of the surrounding circumstances and evidence in 

the case.

[T]his isn’t traffic court. I don’t really care who caused the 

accident for sentencing purposes. This isn’t about, you 

know, who was driving too close to who or who cut off who.

That’s not what this case is about.

This is about a stabbing at the side of the road after there 

was an accident. So I’m not going to get dragged down into 

the weeds about, you know, who was brake-checking who 

or driving too close to who. That might have been relevant 

if we ended up going to trial on this, but it’s not relevant 

now.

***

There was an accident, and this [c]ourt finds that Miss 

Snyder came out with a knife and brutally stabbed the victim 

three times and abandoned her by the side of the road 

where she would have died if she had not gotten assistance 

or been able to drive for help.

The [c]ourt takes judicial notice of the fact that the locations 

where she was stabbed contained vital organs, and the fact 

that she was stabbed three times reflects the fact that 

[Snyder] was seeking to inflict at least serious bodily injury 

upon the victim, if not death. So let’s make the record clear 

on those points.
J-S35023-22

- 5 -

Id. at 35-38.

The court also extensively discussed Snyder’s psychological evaluation 

by Dr. Erickson and Snyder’s mental health issues. It noted that according to 

the PSI, Snyder admitted that she had a history of abusing drugs and alcohol 

and was hospitalized in 2012 for suicidal ideations. Id. at 41. The court agreed 

with Dr. Erickson that Snyder’s bipolar disorder made her more prone to 

impulsive behavior and poor decision-making. Id. at 45. However, the court 

rejected the conclusion that Snyder’s bipolar disorder was the sole cause of 

the stabbing. Rather, it found that Snyder’s actions were the result of an 

antisocial personality and a willful disregard for the law. Id. at 45-46. The 

court concluded:

This [c]ourt finds that [Snyder] is an extremely dangerous 

person, that it is not just due to what she did to this victim, 

but by her incredible overreaction and life-threatening 

violence through her actions, she demonstrated she’s 

extremely dangerous to strangers in this county who might 

cross her.

This was a horrific and mindless extreme act of violence, 

and the [c]ourt believes that [Snyder] is continuing to 

misrepresent about how it occurred, why it occurred, what 

her role was, and I find her expressions of remorse to be 

contrived solely for the purpose of the court proceeding.

Due to the extreme violence involved, her absconding, 

leaving her victim helpless by the side of the road that could 

have likely led to a slow and painful death, the extreme 

harm -- physical harm and emotional harm that continues 

to this day, what I believe is a lack of genuine remorse, a 

genuine lack of rehabilitative potential, [Snyder] continuing 

to lie about how it happened, why it happened, I think [she] 

continues to be a threat to society. She’s going to be 

sentenced above the aggravated range.
J-S35023-22

- 6 -

Id. at 47-48.

The court sentenced Snyder to a period of incarceration of four years 

and nine months to nine years and six months. Following sentencing, Snyder 

challenged her sentence in a post-sentence motion, which, after a hearing on 

December 14, 2021, was denied. This timely appeal followed. Snyder raises 

one issue for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Danielle Snyder above the aggravated range and improperly discounted her 

rehabilitative potential and needs?” Snyder’s Br. at 4.

Snyder challenges the discretionary aspects of her sentence. “The right 

to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute, 

and must be considered a petition for permission to appeal.” Commonwealth 

v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1173 (Pa.Super. 2018). Before reviewing the merits 

of Snyder’s claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the appeal was timely; 

(2) the appellant has preserved [her] issue; (3) [her] brief includes a concise 

statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect 

to the discretionary aspects of [her] sentence; and (4) the concise statement 

raises a substantial question whether the sentence is inappropriate under the 

Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 488 (Pa.Super. 

2019). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) (stating that an appellant who challenges 

the discretionary aspects of a sentence “shall set forth in a separate section 

of the brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of 

appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence”).
J-S35023-22

- 7 -

Here, Snyder has complied with the first three requirements: her appeal 

is timely, she preserved the issue in a post-sentence motion, and her brief 

includes a statement of the reasons for allowance of appeal. We now turn to 

whether Snyder has raised a substantial question.

A substantial question exists when the appellant makes a colorable 

argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either inconsistent with a 

specific provision of the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental 

norms underlying the sentencing process. Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 

A.2d 162, 170 (Pa.Super. 2010). Snyder’s Rule 2119(f) statement claims that 

the sentencing court disregarded her rehabilitative potential and sentenced 

her to a manifestly excessive sentence. Snyder’s Br. at 13. This presents a 

substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 

(Pa.Super. 2014) (stating “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with 

an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a 

substantial question”).

Snyder argues the court failed to consider her rehabilitative needs in 

imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. Snyder’s Br. at 20. She argues 

“[h]er lack of violent history, the fact her actions were brought about by 

extreme stress and mental illness, and her efforts to address her mental 

illness, demonstrate [her] rehabilitative potential and make her sentence 

unreasonable given the nature of the charges.” Id. at 16-17. According to 

Snyder, her actions were not a random act of violence but rather “had their 

root cause in a severe mental illness [she] was attempting to address.” Id. at 
J-S35023-22

- 8 -

21. Snyder also emphasizes she was very remorseful for her conduct. Id. at 

24.

“Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing 

judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse 

of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 637 (Pa.Super. 

2018) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs where “the sentencing

court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of 

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable 

decision.” Id. (citation omitted). In imposing a sentence, the sentencing court 

must consider “the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it 

relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).

Where the court has the benefit of a PSI report, we presume the court 

was aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations and 

consider the requirement that the court place its reasoning on the record to 

be satisfied. Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 26 

(Pa.Super. 2017). In conducting appellate review, we may not reweigh the 

sentencing factors and impose our own judgment in place of that of the trial 

court. See Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa.Super. 2009).

Here, although the court sentenced Snyder outside the sentencing 

guidelines, “[i]t is well established that the [s]entencing [g]uidelines are 

purely advisory in nature.” Commonwealth v. Yuhasz, 923 A.2d 1111, 1118 

(Pa. 2007). A “sentencing court is permitted to deviate from the sentencing 
J-S35023-22

- 9 -

guidelines; however, the court must place on the record its reasons for the 

deviation.” Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 A.2d 777, 780 

(Pa.Super. 2009) (citations omitted). Indeed,

the sentencing court may deviate from the guidelines, if 

necessary, to fashion a sentence which takes into account 

the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the 

defendant, and the gravity of the particular offense as it 

relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the 

community, so long as it also states of record the factual 

basis and specific reasons which compelled it to deviate 

from the guideline range.

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1264 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation 

and brackets omitted).

Instantly, the court adequately stated on the record its reasons for

deviating from the guidelines. The court indicated that it considered all the 

information presented at the sentencing hearing, the information previously 

submitted by Snyder, and Snyder’s oral and written statements. It also noted 

Dr. Erickson’s psychological evaluation, the evidence presented by the 

Commonwealth, the statement of the victim, and all the surrounding 

circumstances and evidence in the case. In addition, the court had the benefit 

of a PSI report. We therefore presume the court weighed all relevant factors, 

including Snyder’s rehabilitative needs. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d at 26.

Further, the court’s statements at sentencing do not reflect that the 

court neglected to consider Snyder’s rehabilitative needs. Rather, the court 

considered that Snyder failed to manage her mental health issues when she 

violently stabbed a stranger three times near vital organs and left the victim 
J-S35023-22

- 10 -

to die, and thus was a danger to the community. The court’s reasons for its 

sentence expressed an appropriate consideration of the protection of the 

public, the gravity of the offense as it related to the impact on the life of the 

victims and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of Snyder. See

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). We discern no abuse of discretion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/07/2023