J-S72032-14

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

STEVEN MORTLAND,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 739 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-43-CR-0001569-2013, 

CP-43-CR-0001590-2013, CP-43-CR-0001599-2013,

CP-43-CR-0001775-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: JANUARY 13, 2015

Steven Mortland (Appellant) appeals from the aggregate judgment of 

sentence of 72 to 180 months of incarceration following his guilty pleas to 

three counts of burglary and one count of retail theft. We affirm.

From the briefs and record before us, it is unclear what facts Appellant 

admitted in entering his pleas. The trial court offers the following 

description of the criminal conduct at issue: “[Appellant] went on a crime 

spree resulting in multiple charges and multiple cases; those cases were 

informally consolidated into one global plea deal.” Trial Court Opinion, 

6/12/2014, at 2. Of the more than 50 counts Appellant faced, he pled guilty 

to the four indicated above, and the Commonwealth nolle prossed the 

remainder. In addition to being ordered to pay restitution, Appellant was 
J-S72032-14

- 2 -

given sentences on the burglary convictions in the standard and aggravated 

range, and a sentence on the retail theft conviction which was in excess of 

the aggravated range, but below the statutory maximum.

At sentencing, Appellant asked the trial court to consider that his 

crimes were motivated by drug addiction and that he had been cooperative 

with the police, including riding around with them and pointing out the 

places he had burglarized. N.T., 4/2/2014, at 10-12. The trial court 

sentenced Appellant to 72 to 180 months of incarceration, having been 

informed of: Appellant’s cooperation and statement of remorse; the 

presentence investigation report; the considerable benefit Appellant received 

from the Commonwealth’s dismissal of the bulk of the charges; Appellant’s 

poor track record of prior court-mandated attempts at rehabilitation; and the 

victim impact statements. Id. at 12-18. 

Appellant timely filed a motion to modify sentence,1claiming that all of 

the sentences are excessive in that they do not reflect consideration of 

Appellant’s rehabilitative needs, and that the standard-range sentence for 

one particular burglary conviction was excessive “because [Appellant] would 

never have been charged with the offenses [at the relevant docket number] 

had he not cooperated with the Pennsylvania State Police.” Motion to Modify 

Sentence, 4/14/2014, at 2 (pages unnumbered). The trial court denied 

 

1 The tenth day after Appellant’s sentence was imposed was Saturday, April 

12, 2014. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion, filed on Monday, April 14, 2014, 

was timely filed. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908. 
J-S72032-14

- 3 -

Appellant’s motion by order of April 14, 2014. Appellant timely filed a notice 

of appeal.

Appellant presents one question for this Court’s review: “Whether the 

[t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion in giving the Appellant consecutive 

sentences?” Appellant’s Brief at 7.

Appellant’s question challenges the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. Accordingly, we bear in mind the following.

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. Two requirements must be 

met before we will review this challenge on its merits. First, an 

appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the 

reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence. Second, the appellant must 

show that there is a substantial question that the sentence 

imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The 

determination of whether a particular issue raises a substantial 

question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to 

establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions 

by the trial court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or 

contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing 

process.

Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1262-63 (Pa. Super. 2012), 

appeal denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 274 (Pa. Super. 2004)). 

Appellant’s brief contains the following statement of the reasons upon 

which he relies for allowance of appeal as to the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence. 
J-S72032-14

- 4 -

The Appellant respectfully submits that his sentence was 

contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the 

sentencing process because the Appellant received consecutive 

sentences. The Appellant concedes that consecutive sentences 

are within the sound discretion of the sentenc[ing] court but in 

the instant case the consecutive sentences were unfair to the 

Appellant because it was the Appellant’s cooperation that led to 

additional charges being filed against him and ultimately led to 

the consecutive sentences.

Appellant’s Brief at 6. 

As Appellant acknowledged, “Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing 

court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other 

sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed. 

Any challenge to the exercise of this discretion ordinarily does not raise a 

substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa. 

Super. 2011) (internal quotation omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Pass, 914 A.2d 442, 446–47 (Pa. Super. 2006)). “[T]he key to resolving 

the preliminary substantial question inquiry is whether the decision to 

sentence consecutively raises 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.” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 

2010). 

Given the scant information in the record or briefs about the criminal 

conduct at issue in this case, we are unable to conclude that Appellant’s 

aggregate sentence is manifestly excessive. Nor are we persuaded that 

there was a violation of sentencing norms when Appellant’s was not given a 
J-S72032-14

- 5 -

“volume discount” because he cooperated with the police. Commonwealth 

v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“We see no reason why 

Hoag should be afforded a ‘volume discount’ for his crimes by having all 

sentences run concurrently.”). Accordingly, we hold that Appellant does not 

raise a substantial question that his sentence of 72 to 180 months of 

imprisonment is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/13/2015