J-S75019-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JIMMY LEE WILSON

Appellant No. 232 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 31, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003317-2013

BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 02, 2015

Jimmy Lee Wilson appeals from his judgment of sentence, imposed by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions for 

five counts of criminal conspiracy1and one count each of: attempted theft 

by extortion,2criminal use of a communication facility,3and terroristic 

threats.4 Upon review, we affirm.

This matter arises from a home invasion that occurred in Levittown, 

Bucks County. Wilson planned to burglarize the home of Thomas and Kecia

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3923(a)(1).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1).
J-S75019-14

- 2 -

Hall because he believed there would be a significant amount of cash in the 

house due to Mr. Hall’s involvement in football pools. Wilson convinced his 

co-conspirator, Kalyn Walker (Walker), to help him execute the robbery. 

Prior to this, Walker did not know anything about the Hall family, except for 

a familiarity with Mr. Hall’s identity. During trial, it was discovered that 

Wilson’s father and Mrs. Hall were distant cousins and that Wilson had been 

to the Halls’ home for family barbeques.

On the night of Saturday, February 23, 2013, Walker picked up Wilson 

in his white Crown Victoria. Wilson gave Walker a black drawstring bag 

containing rope as well as .45 semi-automatic pistol. Upon arriving at the 

Hall residence, Wilson and Walker parked down the street. Walker entered 

the residence while Wilson waited in the car.

Meanwhile, Turquoise Hall, the Halls’ then seventeen year-old 

daughter, was home alone. Around 10:30 p.m., Turquoise heard a knock at 

the front door. When she opened the door she saw Walker, who was 

dressed in black and was wearing a black half-mask while holding a gun. 

Walker told Turquoise not to scream and that it was “OK.” As Turquoise 

backed up, Walker entered the residence.

Once inside, Walker instructed Turquoise to show him her parents’ 

bedroom. Walker proceeded to search the bedroom, but was unsuccessful in 

finding any money. Shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Hall returned home. 

Walker instructed Turquoise to act normally while Walker hid in the kitchen.
J-S75019-14

- 3 -

The Halls entered their home and proceeded to walk into the kitchen, 

where Walker was hiding. Upon encountering each other, Walker pointed his 

gun at Mrs. Hall, told her to get on the floor, and demanded that everyone 

empty their pockets. Walker then ordered Mrs. Hall to bind Turquoise’s 

hands and then had Mr. Hall bind Mrs. Hall’s hands with the same rope. 

Walker led the mother and daughter into the bathroom.

Walker then took Mr. Hall into the Halls’ bedroom and demanded 

$10,000.00. Mr. Hall explained that he did not have that amount of cash in 

the residence. Walker searched the bedroom once more while continuously 

pointing his gun at Mr. Hall. Satisfied there was no cash, Walker instructed 

Mr. Hall to untie his shoes and bind his own hands.

Walker then stated that on the following Monday at 5:30 p.m., Mr. Hall 

better have $10,000.00 or he was going to kill Mrs. Hall and Turquoise. 

Walker instructed Mr. Hall to drop the money in a black bag in a dumpster at 

the Levittown Trace apartments in Bristol Township. Before leaving, Walker 

reminded Mr. Hall that his wife and kids “were gonna get it,” if he did not 

have the money. Because Walker instructed Mr. Hall not to the call the 

police, he did not do so immediately out of fear for his family. 

On the morning of Monday, February 25, 2013, Walker and Wilson 

went to a WaWa store to purchase a phone card so that Walker could use his 

disposable flip-phone. Wilson and Walker then decided to change the plan 

and called Mr. Hall to inform him that the drop-off time was now 12:00 p.m.
J-S75019-14

- 4 -

Following this call, Mr. Hall went to Wal-Mart to obtain a black bag. He 

also went to the credit union to get a hundred dollars in denominations of 

one-dollar bills. Mr. Hall planned on putting the cash in the black bag and 

dropping it at the dumpster. Thereafter, he met up with his cousin and the 

two of them drove towards Levittown Trace apartments.

Because Mr. Hall did not make the 12:00 p.m. drop-off, Wilson and 

Walker decided to increase the amount of money demanded. They informed 

Mr. Hall via text message that the amount had increased to $15,000.00. 

Upon receiving this text, Mr. Hall notified the police. While Mr. Hall was 

giving his statement, he continued to receive calls and text messages from 

Wilson and Walker, which grew increasingly menacing as the day went on. 

Between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mr. Hall received two text messages, 

typed by Wilson, which stated: “[...] If you don’t make it, just hide your 

kids. I will go to one of the college[s] tonight. I got a picture of all four of 

your kids. And I’m not waiting until tomorrow, so get that money,” and 

“Fuck it. I’m gonna put you through hell. You going to wish you paid that 

money.” N.T. Trial, 9/30/13, at 189-90.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hall, accompanied by several officers of the 

Bristol Township Police Department, went to the Levittown Trace apartments 

and put the black bag in the dumpster. A few minutes later, Wilson and 

Walker arrived in Walker’s white Crown Victoria and parked in the parking lot 

across the street. Walker exited the vehicle and scanned the parking lot. 

Walker observed a plainclothes police officer and, believing him to be a 
J-S75019-14

- 5 -

security guard; Walker and Wilson left the lot and drove into the back of the 

Levittown Trace apartment complex. Walker parked and exited the vehicle, 

while Wilson remained inside. Walker then approached the dumpster and 

retrieved the black bag. At that point, the police intercepted and arrested 

Walker. Another officer arrested Wilson immediately thereafter.

Trial began on September 30, 2013, and concluded on October 4, 

2013. The jury found Wilson guilty of the aforementioned offenses and, on 

October 31, 2013, sentenced him to an aggregate term of 12 to 37 years’ 

imprisonment. At the time of sentencing, Wilson had a prior record score of 

5.

5

On November 12, 2013, Wilson, through counsel, filed post-trial 

motions, which included a motion to reconsider sentence. On December 17, 

2013, the court held a hearing on Wilson’s post-trial motions and granted, in 

part, his motion to reconsider sentence. The court vacated its sentence on 

the attempted theft by extortion conviction and imposed a new sentence of 

6 months’ to 5 years’ incarceration. This reduced Wilson’s aggregate 

sentence to 11 to 37 years’ imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Wilson claims his sentence is excessive and thus challenges 

the discretionary aspects of his sentence. A challenge to the discretionary 

____________________________________________

5 Wilson’s prior record score was 5 based on a prior juvenile robbery 

conviction from when he was 15 years old as well as a felony possession 

with intent to deliver conviction from when he was 18.
J-S75019-14

- 6 -

aspects of a sentence is not appealable as of right. Rather, an appellant 

must petition for allowance of appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781. 

Commonwealth v. Hanson, 856 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2004).

Before we reach the merits of this [issue], we must engage in a 

four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is 

timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether 

Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons 

relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise 

statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is 

appropriate under the sentencing code. The third and fourth of 

these requirements arise because Appellant’s attack on his 

sentence is not an appeal as of right. Rather, he must petition 

this Court, in his concise statement of reasons, to grant 

consideration of his appeal on the grounds that there is a 

substantial question. Finally, if the appeal satisfies each of these 

four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the 

substantive merits of the case.

Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations 

omitted).

Here, Wilson has filed a timely appeal and preserved this issue by 

filing a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence. He has also 

included in his brief a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), in which he 

claims, inter alia, that the court erred when it failed to explain a sentence 

that exceeded the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines. This 

Court has previously found that a claim that the sentencing court imposed a 

sentence outside of the guidelines without specifying sufficient reasons 

presents a substantial question for our review. See Commonwealth v. 
J-S75019-14

- 7 -

Holiday, 954 A.2d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, we review the merits of 

Wilson’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

Our standard of review is well established:

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. In this context, an abuse 

of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. 

Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, 

that 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.

Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 589 (Pa. Super. 2010).

In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the 

guidelines, the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of 

the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. See 42 Pa.C.S. 

9721(b). Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and 

resentencing the defendant. Id. For the offense of conspiracy to commit 

robbery, the sentencing guidelines call for a standard range sentence of 4 to 

5 years, and in the aggravated range, 6 years. Here, the court sentenced 

Wilson to 8 to 20 years on the count of conspiracy to commit robbery. 

Wilson asserts that the court failed to explain its deviation from the 

guidelines, however, the record belies this claim.

At sentencing, the Honorable Albert J. Cepparulo stated:

When I sentence you today, I want you to understand, Mr. 

Wilson, that the sentences are driven by the terror that you 

visited upon this family that night, they are also driven by my 

desire to offer that family and every other family who lives a 

peaceful life, protection from you specifically for as long a period 
J-S75019-14

- 8 -

as I can. I will deviate from those guidelines in one of the 

matters based on the statements I have made here today, the 

victim’s statements here today, the facts of this abominable 

crime, and the responsibility that you bear.

N.T. Sentencing, 10/31/13, at 24. Judge Cepparulo further explained his 

reasons for deviating from the guidelines at Wilson’s hearing on his motion 

for reconsideration of sentence.

[T]his was beyond aggravated because it involved at least three 

victims. It was also a case where you actually knew the family 

and set up this robbery, burglary, knowing that the family had 

some money. This is a case where you convinced a much 

younger, immature man to commit a really serious home 

invasion. And I am convinced beyond a doubt that it was you 

who convinced him and not the other way around. 

I give some credence to the fact that you had three robberies as 

a juvenile, but I give equal credence to the fact that throughout 

the next ten years as an adult, there were no convictions.

I did consider, of course, that this case had a wide-ranging 

community impact for anyone who lived in a home. People think 

that their home is their safe haven; that when they come home 

from work, they shut the door, they may even lock the door, but 

that’s it. That’s the end of the outside. Now you’re with family 

or friends, and that’s it. But you made that a false sense of 

security. You changed the Halls, their lives, forever.

N.T. Reconsideration of Sentence Hearing, 12/17/13, at 17-19.

As the record shows, Judge Cepparulo explained his reasons for 

deviating from the guidelines when sentencing Wilson on the count of 

conspiracy to commit robbery. Accordingly, we discern no error by the 

sentencing court.

Wilson further argues that the court abused its discretion when it 

relied primarily on the nature of the crime and its impact on the victims in 

fashioning its sentence. We also find this assertion belied by the record. In 
J-S75019-14

- 9 -

addition to the nature of the crime and the impact on the victims, Judge 

Cepparulo also considered the need to protect the public, the fact that 

Wilson had not committed a crime in 10 years, and his rehabilitative needs.

Wilson also claims that the court erred when it imposed consecutive 

sentences on the counts of terroristic threats, unlawful use of a 

communication facility, and attempted theft by extortion. Wilson asserts 

that ordering the sentences to run consecutively resulted in an excessive 

sentence in light of the criminal conduct at issue in this case.

Generally speaking, the court’s exercise of discretion in imposing 

consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences is not viewed as raising a 

substantial question that would allow the granting of allowance of appeal. 

Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 2005). However, this 

Court has found that a substantial question is raised where a decision to 

sentence consecutively increases the aggregate sentence to, what appears 

upon its face to be, an excessive level in light of the criminal conduct at 

issue in the case. See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 859 A.2d 771 (Pa. 

Super. 2004), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 935 A.2d 1290 

(Pa. 2007), (appellant sentenced to 58 1⁄2 to 124 years’ imprisonment after 

convicted of numerous, largely property offenses, i.e., 37 counts of receiving 

stolen property, two counts of burglary, criminal trespass, etc.).

Here, the facts simply do not support such a finding of excessiveness. 

Wilson orchestrated a serious home invasion that lasted for several days. 

He provided Walker with the rope and the gun used to tie up and terrorize 
J-S75019-14

- 10 -

the Halls. Wilson also sent many of the threatening text messages to Mr. 

Hall. Accordingly, Wilson fails to raise a substantial question with this 

argument. Marts, supra.

In his last argument, Wilson claims that the sentencing court abused 

its discretion in imposing an aggregate sentence that was grossly disparate 

when compared to his co-defendant’s sentence. The law is well-settled that 

co-defendants are not required to receive identical sentences. Generally, a 

sentencing court must indicate the reasons for differences in sentences 

between co-defendants. See Mastromarino, 2 A.3d at 589.

Here, the court explained that it sentenced Wilson as it did because he 

was the mastermind of the conspiracy. Further, the court noted that Wilson 

did not appear to reflect on his crimes or show any remorse, nor did he take 

responsibility for his actions leading up to and during the home invasion. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/15/14, at 38. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of 

discretion. Mastromarino, supra (no abuse of discretion where defendant 

was “mastermind” behind heinous criminal conduct and court thoroughly 

considered defendant’s circumstances and explained court’s reasons for 

disparity sentences).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S75019-14

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/2/2015