J-S79002-14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAMS TUNNER, AKA TUNNER 

WILLIAMS,

Appellant No. 2392 EDA 2012

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered August 2, 2012,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002730-2010

BEFORE: ALLEN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER*, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 17, 2014

Williams Tunner, aka Tunner Williams1(“Appellant”), appeals from the 

judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of criminal 

conspiracy.2 After careful review, we vacate the judgment of sentence and 

remand for resentencing.

The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history 

as follows:

On May 9, 2008, the Narcotics Field Unit of the 

Philadelphia Police Department set up surveillance in the area of 

55th Street and Warrington Avenue in the City and County of 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant is also referenced in the record as William Turner.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.
J-S79002-14

- 2 -

Philadelphia. A confidential informant had relayed information 

that drugs were being sold out of a residence located at 5501 

Warrington Avenue. Upon arrival at that site, Sergeant Robinson 

searched the confidential informant for any drugs or money. At 

approximately 7:30 p.m., Sergeant Robinson set up surveillance 

on 55th Street and observed the confidential informant approach 

5501 Warrington Ave. The Confidential Informant knocked on 

the door and was allowed inside the residence. Less than a 

minute later, an unknown black male exited the home and 

walked south on 55th Street, past Sergeant Robinson’s location. 

Officer Simmons then picked up surveillance of the black male 

from his location further down 55th Street. Officer Simmons saw 

the unidentified black male enter the rear passenger side of a 

white Buick containing three other men. After approximately 1 

to 2 minutes, the black male exited the vehicle. The unidentified 

black male then returned to 5501 Warrington Ave. 

Approximately 15 seconds later, the confidential informant 

exited the residence and rendezvoused with Sergeant Robinson 

at a predetermined location. The confidential informant was 

found to be in possession of three red ziplock packets of what 

was later identified as crack cocaine. The informant also did not 

have the forty dollars of prerecorded buy money with him.

After the unidentified black male exited the Buick, the car 

began driving away and was stopped on Belmar Avenue by 

Officer Simmons, Officer London and two uniformed Philadelphia 

Police Officers. The occupants were ordered to exit the vehicle. 

Officer London secured the driver, later identified as Dean 

Bloodworth. Mr. Bloodworth was found to be in possession of 

$80 USC, forty of which was the prerecorded buy money. As the 

Appellant exited the passenger side of the vehicle, Officer 

Simmons observed an amber pill bottle fall into the street. The 

pill bottle contained 13 red ziplock packets matching those 

packets found on the confidential informant, containing what was 

later identified as crack cocaine. Officer Simmons immediately 

recognized the bottle’s contents as narcotics when he saw it. 

Appellant and Mr. Bloodworth were arrested and brought to the 

Philadelphia Police station. Both the drugs found on the 

confidential informant and the drugs found in the pill bottle 

tested positive for cocaine base.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/13, at 2-3 (citations to record omitted).
J-S79002-14

- 3 -

Appellant was charged with criminal conspiracy to possess controlled 

substances with intent to deliver (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; 35 P.S. § 780-

113(a)(30)); possession with intent to deliver (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30)); 

and simple possession of a controlled substance (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16)). 

A jury trial commenced on March 13, 2012, and on March 14, 2012, the jury 

found Appellant guilty of criminal conspiracy, and not guilty of the remaining 

charges.

Following a hearing on August 2, 2012, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to 41⁄2 to 9 years of imprisonment. Appellant filed a post-sentence 

motion on August 10, 2012, and a notice of appeal on August 29, 2012. On 

December 21, 2012, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s 

post-sentence motion. Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict of 

guilty.

2. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence.

3. Whether the trial court erred when it answered “yes” to 

the question of whether or not the jury could return a 

verdict of guilt on the charge of conspiracy only?

4. Whether the sentence imposed is illegal, improper, or 

excessively punitive where [Appellant] could be sentenced 

to a term of imprisonment of a greater degree than that of 

which he was convicted and where the sentence (41⁄2 to 9 

years) was six months shy of the statutory maximum and 

was beyond the aggravated range recommended in the 

sentencing guidelines. The Court failed to consider the 

guidelines in fashioning an appropriate sentence.
J-S79002-14

- 4 -

5. Whether the trial court erred in permitting Sgt. Davis to 

testify as to the [Appellant’s] character and/or a victim 

impact statement regarding his encounters with 

[Appellant] and his family.

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conspiracy conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 9-12. When 

reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are bound by 

the following:

We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial,

and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, 

support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there 

is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every 

element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable 

doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.

The evidence established at trial need not preclude every 

possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, 

part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the 

province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute 

our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth's 

burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any 

doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact 

finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a 

matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the 

combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342, 345 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Appellant maintains that his mere presence in a vehicle was an 

insufficient basis for the trial court to conclude that he was engaged in a 

conspiracy. Appellants Brief at 10-12. In order to sustain a criminal 

conspiracy conviction, the Commonwealth must prove: “(1) an intent to 

commit or aid in an unlawful act, (2) an agreement with a co-conspirator 
J-S79002-14

- 5 -

and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. 

Thomas, 65 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). 

Appellant is correct that “[t]o establish complicity, mere presence at 

the scene of a crime and knowledge of the commission of criminal acts is not 

sufficient.” Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749, 756 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(citation omitted). However:

a conspiracy may be inferred where it is demonstrated that the 

relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt 

acts of the co-conspirators sufficiently prove the formation of a 

criminal confederation. The conduct of the parties and the 

circumstances surrounding their conduct may create a web of 

evidence linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Even if the conspirator did not act as a 

principal in committing the underlying crime, he is still criminally 

liable for the actions of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the 

conspiracy.

Knox, 50 A.3d at 755 quoting Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 

996–97 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). See also Thomas, 65 A.3d at 

943 (“Because it is difficult to prove an explicit or formal agreement to 

commit an unlawful act, such an act may be proved inferentially by 

circumstantial evidence, i.e., the relations, conduct or circumstances of the 

parties or overt acts on the part of the co-conspirators.”) (citations omitted).

Here, the record indicates that evidence was sufficient to support the 

conspiracy conviction. As the trial court explained:

Appellant was in a vehicle that was entered by an unknown male 

who had come from a home where a confidential informant said 

drugs were being sold. That unknown male then returned to the 

home and provided the informant with several red baggies of 

crack cocaine. As soon as Appellant was removed from his 
J-S79002-14

- 6 -

vehicle, a pill bottle containing several red baggies of crack 

cocaine fell from where he had been seated. Those baggies 

matched the ones that were recovered from a confidential 

informant. The other occupant of that vehicle was found to be in 

possession of $40 in pre-recorded buy money that had been 

provided to the confidential informant. The jury determined that 

the evidence showed that Appellant and the vehicle’s other 

occupant had entered into an agreement with a shared criminal 

intent and committed an overt act in furtherance of their 

conspiracy. 

Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/13, at 7.

Upon review, we agree with the trial court. The jury acted within its 

province as factfinder in concluding from the evidence that Appellant was 

involved in the transaction with the unknown male who exited the residence 

at 5501 Warrington, and received drugs from Appellant and/or Mr. 

Bloodworth in exchange for the $40 of pre-recorded buy money provided to 

him by the confidential informant, before returning to the residence to 

deliver the drugs, particularly since the drugs were retrieved from 

Appellant’s side of the car. Accordingly, Appellant's sufficiency issue is 

without merit.

Appellant next argues that the verdict was against the weight of the 

evidence. Our scrutiny of whether a verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence is governed by the principles set forth in Commonwealth v. 

Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted):

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of 

fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and 

to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court 

cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. 

Thus, we may only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. 
J-S79002-14

- 7 -

Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight 

claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the 

underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight 

of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether 

the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the 

weight claim. 

In his weight claim, Appellant argues that the evidence was 

contradictory and unreliable. “A new trial is warranted on a challenge to the 

weight of the evidence only if the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to 

shock one's sense of justice. Furthermore, issues of credibility are left to the 

trier of fact; the jury is free to accept all, part, or none of the witness 

testimony.” Commonwealth v. Russell, 665 A.2d 1239, 1246-1247 (Pa. 

Super. 1995) (citations omitted). Here, the jury found credible the 

testimony of Officers Robinson and Simmons. Specifically, the jury found 

credible the officers’ testimony about their recovery of cocaine that fell from 

Appellant’s side of the vehicle, and $40 of pre-recorded buy money from Mr. 

Bloodworth. Furthermore, although Appellant baldly asserts that the 

testimony of Commonwealth’s witnesses was unreliable and contradictory, 

Appellant fails to cite the purported inconsistent and contradictory 

testimony. Credibility determinations are for the jury to resolve and we will 

not disturb such credibility determinations on appeal. See Commonwealth 

v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 541 (Pa. Super. 1995) (it is solely for the 

finder of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses and to resolve any 
J-S79002-14

- 8 -

conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence). Appellant’s weight of the 

evidence claim fails. 

In his third issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in 

informing the jury that it could return a verdict of guilty on the charge of 

conspiracy only. Appellant refers to a written jury question submitted by the 

jury to the trial court during deliberations on March 15, 2012. The jury’s 

question was: 

Is it legally possible to convict of conspiracy without convicting 

of possession or intent to distribute? 

Jury Question, 3/15/12.

In response to the jury’s question, the trial court stated on the record:

The simple answer to that is yes. Each charge stands by itself. 

So PWID is one crime. The criminal conspiracy is a completely 

separate and distinct crime, as is the KI.

N.T., 3/15/12, at 57.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s decision to inform the jury that 

they could convict him solely of conspiracy. In Commonwealth v. Riley, 

811 A.2d 610, 618 (Pa. Super. 2002) we explained, “as conspiracy requires 

proof only of an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of the 

conspiracy, a defendant may be found guilty of conspiracy without being 

convicted of the underlying offense.” In other words, “commission of the 

underlying crime is not an element of criminal conspiracy. ‘Conspiracy to 

commit a crime and the underlying crime itself are two entirely separate 
J-S79002-14

- 9 -

offenses with separate elements required for each.’” Commonwealth v. 

Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704, 711 (Pa. Super. 2013) quoting Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 791 (Pa. Super. 1998). Appellant’s claim that 

the trial court erred in informing the jury that they could convict him of 

conspiracy while finding him not guilty of the remaining charges is therefore 

meritless. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 1992) 

(finding that apparent inconsistency where the jury found the appellant 

guilty of the conspiracy charge while finding him not guilty of delivery and 

possession was not grounds for relief).

In his fourth issue, Appellant argues that the trial court imposed an 

illegal sentence and/or abused its sentencing discretion. Appellant’s Brief at 

17-23. “If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that 

sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be 

vacated. Likewise, a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is 

illegal. If a court “imposes a sentence outside of the legal parameters

prescribed by the applicable statute, the sentence is illegal and should be 

remanded for correction.” Commonwealth v. Infante, 63 A.3d 358 (Pa. 

Super. 2013). Appellant’s brief is devoid of any support or argument for his 

assertion that the sentence was illegal other than an assertion that “the jury 

did not have on the verdict sheet what substantive offense the conspiracy 

was to commit.” Appellant’s Brief at 21. Appellant fails to develop this 

argument about legality with any cogent discussion. Moreover, Appellant 
J-S79002-14

- 10 -

acknowledges that the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum of 

60 months. See Appellant’s Brief at 18. Given the lack of any development 

of Appellant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence, we decline to address 

it.

However, Appellant also argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it sentenced him to 41⁄2 to 9 years of imprisonment. A 

challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not appealable as of 

right. Rather, Appellant must petition for allowance of appeal pursuant to 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 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).

Appellant has preserved his claim by filing a post-sentence motion and 

timely notice of appeal. Appellant has additionally included in his brief a 
J-S79002-14

- 11 -

concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). See Appellant’s Brief at 

17-18. Therefore, we proceed to determine whether Appellant has raised a 

substantial question for our review. 

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

imposed a sentence for conspiracy well beyond the aggravated range of the 

sentencing guidelines, and in so doing, failed to give proper consideration to 

mitigating factors, and failed to state on the record the reasons for the 

sentence. Appellant’s Brief at 9, 17-23. Accordingly, Appellant asserts that 

his sentence was excessive. “A substantial question will be found where the 

defendant advances a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is 

either inconsistent with a specific provision of the code or is contrary to the 

fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. A claim that the 

sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside 

the guideline ranges presents a “substantial question” for our review.” 

Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 2001). See also 

Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en 

banc) (a substantial question is raised where an appellant alleges that the 

sentencing court erred by imposing an aggravated range sentence without 

consideration of mitigating circumstances). Appellant has thus presented a 

substantial question and we proceed to review his claim.

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

sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a 
J-S79002-14

- 12 -

manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Garcia-Rivera, 983 

A.2d 777, 780 (Pa. Super. 2009).

More specifically, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b) offers the following 

guidance to the trial court's sentencing determination:

[T]he sentence imposed should call for confinement 

that is consistent with 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.

***

The ... weighing of factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b) [is] 

exclusively for the sentencing court, and an appellate court could 

not substitute its own weighing of those factors. The primary 

consideration, therefore, is whether the court imposed an 

individualized sentence, and whether the sentence was 

nonetheless unreasonable for sentences falling outside the 

guidelines, or clearly unreasonable for sentences falling within 

the guidelines, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c).

Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872, 875-876 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(citations omitted). 

Section 9781(c) specifically defines three instances in which the 

appellate courts should vacate a sentence and remand: (1) the sentencing 

court applied the guidelines erroneously; (2) the sentence falls within the 

guidelines, but is “clearly unreasonable” based on the circumstances of the 

case; and (3) the sentence falls outside of the guidelines and is 

“unreasonable.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c). Bricker, 41 A.3d at 876 

“[T]he term ‘unreasonable’ generally means a decision that is either 

irrational or not guided by sound judgment. [A] sentence can be defined as 
J-S79002-14

- 13 -

unreasonable either upon review of the four elements contained in § 

9781(d) or if the sentencing court failed to take into account the factors 

outlined in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b).” Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d

494, 497 (Pa. Super. 2011), quoting Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 

957 (Pa. 2007). However, “rejection of a sentencing court's imposition of 

sentence on unreasonableness grounds [should] occur infrequently, whether 

the sentence is above or below the guidelines ranges.” Commonwealth v. 

Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 777 (Pa. Super. 2009) quoting Walls, 926 A.2d 

at 964. 

Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9871, an appellate court must have regard 

for the following statutory factors in our review of the certified record: (1) 

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant, (2) the opportunity of the sentencing court 

to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation, (3) the 

findings upon which the sentence was based, and (4) the guidelines 

promulgated by the commission. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9871(d)(1)-(4). 

“In every case where the court imposes a sentence ... outside the 

guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing ... the 

court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or 

reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(b). 

However, [t]his requirement is satisfied when the judge states his reasons 

for the sentence on the record and in the defendant's presence ... in open 
J-S79002-14

- 14 -

court.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 761 (Pa. Super. 

2014).

[Section 9721(b)] requires a trial judge who intends to sentence 

a defendant outside the guidelines to demonstrate on the record, 

as a proper starting point, his awareness of the sentencing 

guidelines. Having done so, 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 he also states of record the factual basis 

and specific reasons which compelled [him] to deviate from the 

guideline range.

***

The court's statement of reasons for deviating from the 

guidelines serves not only as a record of the court's rationale for 

the deviation but also as evidence that the court considered the 

guidelines. We cannot analyze whether there are adequate 

reasons for the deviation unless it is first apparent that the court 

was aware of, and considered the guidelines.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 666 A.2d 690, 693 (Pa. Super. 1995) 

(citations omitted). 

Here, the guidelines recommended a standard range of sentence of 15 

to 21 months, +/- 6 months in the mitigated and aggravated ranges. N.T., 

8/2/12, at 11. Appellant’s sentence of 41⁄2 to 9 years fell outside the 

aggravated range of the guidelines. 

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court provided the following 

reasons on the record for its sentence:

I have reviewed everything and I didn’t have an 

opportunity to review the [Preliminary Arraignment Reporting 

System] PARS. I am not claiming I am not going to. I have 
J-S79002-14

- 15 -

reviewed everything and the PSI and the prior record score in 

great detail. I paid particular attention to the presentence 

investigation. 

I told you to take it seriously and you told the officer that 

this is what hanging around with the wrong crowd gets you. 

That is not what it gets, it gets you shot. And dealing in drugs 

and that is a conspiracy and you openly fought me on that.

I don’t really think you are remorseful for what you have 

done. And I told you if things don’t go your way, it is a 

minimum of 2 to 4. Under the circumstances considering 

everything and you keep rolling the dice, you did come up snake 

eyes this time. It is your right.

Based on the totality of everything, it is 4 and a half to 9 

years.

N.T., 8/2/12, at 39.

At sentencing, the trial court made clear that it had “reviewed the PSI 

and the prior record score in great detail.” Id. However, although cognizant 

of Appellant’s prior record, the trial court did not set forth the relevant 

guideline ranges, or indicate that it was aware of and considered the 

sentencing guidelines before electing to depart from them. 

Moreover, the trial court’s brief explanation for its sentence failed to 

state the “factual basis and specific reasons” which compelled the drastic 

upward departure from the guideline range. Johnson, supra. Although the 

trial court noted that it had “reviewed the PSI” and felt that Appellant was 

not remorseful, the trial court failed to state what factors revealed in the PSI 

report it was relying on to warrant the upward deviation, or how Appellant’s 

lack of remorse was so atypical as to warrant imposition of a sentence so far 

in excess of the guideline range. Additionally, the record does not reflect 
J-S79002-14

- 16 -

that the trial court took into account the relevant sentencing factors 

enumerated in § 9721(b) -- including 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 Appellant’s rehabilitative needs -- before sentencing 

him outside of the guidelines.

“[A]lthough sentencing judges have broad discretion, they do not 

have unfettered or unchecked discretion. Therefore, when a sentence 

exceeds the aggravated range of the guidelines and there is an allegation of 

excessiveness, this Court must review the record to determine whether 

there was an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Monahan, 860 A.2d 

180, 182 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). Upon review, we agree with 

Appellant that the reasons for the trial court’s upward deviation were not 

clearly stated on the record as required under section 9721(b) of the 

Sentencing Code. Therefore, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of 

sentence and remand for re-sentencing. 

In his final issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing 

Sergeant Davis of the Philadelphia Police Department to testify at the 

sentencing hearing about his personal knowledge of Appellant’s character, 

Appellant’s reputation for intimidation in the community, and his previous 

encounters with Appellant, who displayed threatening behavior. Appellant’s 

Brief at 24-25. Specifically, Appellant argues that Sergeant Davis’s 

testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay and was based on the officer’s 

unsubstantiated recollections of his previous encounters. Id.
J-S79002-14

- 17 -

“Sentencing courts may consider evidence that might not be admitted 

at trial.” Commonwealth v. Charles, 488 A.2d 1126, 1129 (Pa. Super. 

1985). “Significantly, the admission of hearsay in sentencing proceedings, 

especially those which do not involve a capital crime, is a common 

occurrence. In fact, sentencing courts, as a matter of course, consider 

hearsay in nearly every sentencing case since pre-sentence investigations 

are routinely ordered and considered by the court, and a pre-sentence report 

is the very definition of hearsay ...” Commonwealth v. Medley, 725 A.2d 

1225, 1230 (Pa. Super. 1999). A sentencing judge “may appropriately 

conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of 

information he may consider, or the source from which it may come. 

Nevertheless, the discretion of a sentencing judge is not unfettered; a 

defendant has the right to minimal safeguards to ensure that the sentencing 

court does not rely on factually erroneous information, and any sentence 

predicated on such false assumptions is inimicable to the concept of due 

process.” Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 418 A.2d 637, 640-641 (Pa. 

Super. 1980).

Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to 

permit Sergeant Davis’s testimony. Sergeant Davis testified to information 

within his personal knowledge, and Appellant was permitted to crossexamine the sergeant as to the basis for his opinions to reveal any 

weaknesses and inconsistency in his testimony. To the extent that Appellant 

argues that the trial court improperly relied on Sergeant Davis’ testimony in 
J-S79002-14

- 18 -

its imposition of sentence, we reiterate that the trial court failed to provide 

adequate reasons on the record for its sentence, and therefore we cannot 

evaluate whether the trial court relied solely on the sergeant’s testimony in 

imposing an above-guideline range sentence, to the exclusion of other 

sentencing factors, or otherwise improperly considered the testimony in its 

imposition of sentence. However, in light of our decision to remand for resentencing, we need not address such claim.

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/17/2014