J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FRED ORSON BARNES, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 374 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 30, 2020

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

No(s): CP-08-CR-0000458-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FRED ORSON BARNES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 861 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 30, 2020

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

No(s): CP-08-CR-0000459-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 8, 2021

Appellant, Fred Orson Barnes, Jr., appeals from the judgment of 

sentence, entered January 30, 2020. We affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the pertinent facts of this case:

Appellant entered [guilty] pleas to [t]erroristic [t]hreats, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1) [misdemeanor] 1 [at docket 

CP-08-CR-0000458-2019]; and [d]riving [u]nder the [i]nfluence 

of a [c]ontrolled [s]ubstance, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(1)(i), 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 2 -

[ungraded misdemeanor at docket CP-08-CR-0000459-2019] on 

November 18, 2019. Appellant was sentenced on January 30, 

2020 to a split sentence of incarceration the minimum of which is 

[one] month and the maximum of which is [five] months, 29 days 

followed by 12 months of probation for the offense of [t]erroristic 

[t]hreats and a sentence of incarceration the minimum of which is 

72 hours and a maximum of which is [six] months for the offense 

of [d]riving [u]nder the [i]nfluence of a [c]ontrolled [s]ubstance. 

The sentences imposed were directed to run consecutively to each 

other as well as consecutively to a sentence imposed in the case 

at [CP-08-CR-0000676-2017, a new sentence imposed after the 

court revoked Appellant’s probation on July 29, 2019. The terms 

of the revocation sentence directed Appellant to serve] a minimum 

of [three] months and a maximum of 12 months for the crime of 

[p]ossession of [d]rug [p]araphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), 

[misdemeanor].

Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/20, at 1. These appeals followed.1 

Appellant argues that his sentence is excessive. Specifically, he 

contends that the trial court arrived at a “manifestly unreasonable” decision 

because “[a] mitigated sentence, or a sentence below the mitigated range 

outside of the guidelines, would not be an unreasonable sentence in these 

circumstances.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. Appellant’s issue therefore implicates 

the discretionary aspects of sentencing. As this Court previously explained:

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant challenging 

the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court's 

jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

____________________________________________

1. Appellant’s appeal from his conviction and sentence for terroristic threats 

is docketed with this Court at 374 MDA 2020. His appeal from his conviction 

and sentence for driving under the influence of a controlled substance is 

docketed at 861 MDA 2020. Appellant filed two notices of appeal, fulfilling 

his obligations pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 

2018). 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 3 -

We 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. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal 

case citations omitted). Appellant timely appealed his sentence and included 

a Rule 2119(f) statement. Appellant, however, failed to preserve his issue or 

raise a substantial question to warrant our review on the merits. 

Issues not preserved in the trial court may not be pursued before this 

Court. Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 610 (Pa. Super. 2013), 

citing Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Challenges to the discretionary aspects of a trial 

court’s sentence are waived unless raised at the time of sentencing or in a 

post-sentence motion. Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d 945, 949 (Pa. 

Super. 2008). To confirm preservation, we look only to those documents 

within the certified record. Id. 

At the time of sentencing, Appellant did not raise a discretionary 

sentencing challenge or any argument for a mitigated sentence. Indeed, the 

only argument raised by counsel for Appellant involved a presupposition of a 

standard range sentence. See, N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/30/20, at 2 

(counsel stating, “if these are going to be in the standard range . . .”). After 

the trial court imposed its sentence, Appellant did not raise any challenge. 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 4 -

Moreover, the certified record reveals that no post-sentence motions were 

filed on Appellant’s behalf. Therefore, in not raising a discretionary sentencing 

issue in the trial court, Appellant failed to preserve the issue and waived his 

challenge.

Even if Appellant preserved his issue for appeal, Appellant failed to raise 

a substantial question to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. As this Court has 

explained, to establish a substantial question, an “appellant must show actions 

by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to 

the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth 

v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008). It is settled that a bald 

assertion of sentencing errors does not constitute a substantial question. 

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). We have 

explained:

An allegation that the sentencing court failed to consider certain 

mitigating factors generally does not necessarily raise a 

substantial question. Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 

57 (Pa. Super. 2003). Accord Commonwealth v. Wellor, 731 

A.2d 152, 155 (Pa. Super. 1999) (reiterating allegation that 

sentencing court “failed to consider” or “did not adequately 

consider” certain factors generally does not raise substantial 

question. Compare Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 

1105, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (stating substantial 

question is raised, however, where appellant alleges sentencing 

court imposed sentence in aggravated range without adequately 

considering mitigating circumstances).

“When imposing a sentence, a court is required to consider the 

particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the 

defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa. 

Super. 2002), appeal denied, [868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005)], cert. 

denied, [545 U.S. 1148] (2005). “In particular, the court should 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 5 -

refer to the defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal 

characteristics and his potential for rehabilitation.” Id. Where the 

sentencing court had the benefit of a presentence investigation 

report (“PSI”), we can assume the sentencing court “was aware 

of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and 

weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory 

factors.” Commonwealth v. Devers, [546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 

1988)]. See also Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 

(Pa. Super. 2005) (stating if sentencing court has benefit of PSI, 

law expects court was aware of relevant information regarding 

defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along 

with any mitigating factors). Further, where a sentence is within 

the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the 

sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code. See 

Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, [668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 

1995)], appeal denied, [676 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 1996)] (stating 

combination of PSI and standard range sentence, absent more, 

cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable).

Moury, 992 A.2d, at 171. 

Here, Appellant asserts that the trial court imposed an excessive 

sentence in light of mitigating circumstances, including that Appellant “had a 

[zero] prior record score at the time of sentencing, had never been convicted 

of a felony offense, [and] had been attending drug and alcohol counseling 

sessions with Trinity CASA while incarcerated in the Bradford County 

Correction Facility[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 9. This bald assertion essentially 

claims that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing Appellant’s punishment 

because it failed to consider, or failed to adequately consider, certain 

mitigating factors. Such contentions do not raise a substantial question to 

invoke our jurisdiction over discretionary sentencing challenges.

Even if Appellant had raised a substantial question and preserved his 

issue such that we would grant review, his appeal lacks merit. Sentencing is 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 6 -

a matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be 

disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Blount, 

207 A.3d 925, 934 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 218 

A.3d1198 (Pa. 2019). This is not merely an error in judgment. Rather, 

Appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the trial 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. at 934-935. 

Appellant argues for a sentence at or below the mitigated range. See

Appellant’s Brief at 9 (arguing such a sentence “would not be an unreasonable 

sentence”). However, there is no requirement for the trial court to impose 

the “minimum possible confinement” Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 

957, 965 (Pa. 2007). Rather, the trial court need only impose a sentence 

consistent with concerns for public protection, gravity of the offense, and the 

rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Id., citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). The 

trial court in this case did so. See N.T. Sentencing Hearing, 1/30/20, at 9. 

Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the fact that a mitigated sentence could 

have been reasonable in this instance does not make the sentence imposed 

unreasonable. Appellant failed to cite anything in the record to establish that 

the trial court’s reasoning was improper. 

Moreover, the trial court conducted an exhaustive on-the-record 

evaluation of Appellant’s presentence investigation (“PSI”) report. See N.T. 

Sentencing Hearing, 1/30/20, at 3-4. Because the trial court had a PSI report 
J-S04006-21

J-S04007-21

- 7 -

and evaluated it on the record, we presume that it was aware of and weighed 

all mitigating considerations when sentencing Appellant. Moury, supra. 

Therefore, Appellant’s claim is meritless. 

Accordingly, based upon all of the foregoing, Appellant failed to preserve 

his issues or raise a substantial question and, thus, his petition for review of 

the discretionary aspects of his sentence must be denied.

Judgment of sentenced affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/08/2021