J-S22010-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MARIO MATTHEW GATTI 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 768 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 19, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001386-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: August 30, 2024

Mario Matthew Gatti appeals1from the judgment of sentence entered in 

the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas on January 19, 2023. On 

appeal, Gatti challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions 

and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm. 

The trial court accurately summarized the factual history of this case as 

follows: 

The instant case arises out of the shooting death of Michael 

Coover on January 16, 2020 in Arnold, Westmoreland County. 

During trial, [] Coover's fiancée, Tanae Warren (hereinafter

“Tanae”) testified that she, [] Coover, her stepmother, her father, 

____________________________________________

1 Gatti purports to appeal from the order entered on June 15, 2023, in which 

the trial court denied his post-sentence motion. “In a criminal action, appeal 

properly lies from the judgment of sentence made final by the denial of postsentence motions.” Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 410 n. 

2 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc). The caption reflects that this appeal is properly 

taken from the January 19, 2023 judgment of sentence.
J-S22010-24

- 2 -

her younger brother, and her son all lived at a home in Arnold. 

Tanae stated that on January 16, 2020, at approximately 4:00 

p.m., [Gatti] entered the residence in which they lived without 

knocking, and she immediately observed [Gatti] holding a 

handgun. Tanae indicated that she immediately got up off of the 

couch in the living room where she, her sister, and her baby were 

sitting, and she tried to get in between [Gatti] and [] Coover who 

was sitting in a chair in the kitchen. Tanae confirmed that she was 

aware of previous issues involving [Gatti] and [] Coover, which 

[had] begun two months prior over [] Coover owing [Gatti] money 

for drugs. Tanae indicated [Gatti] asked her where [] Coover was, 

and he eventually pushed her out of the way and proceeded to the 

kitchen. Tanae stated that she then observed cold grease flying 

around the corner and before she could get to her feet, she heard 

two gun shots. Tanae testified that on [Gatti]’s way back out of 

the front door, [Gatti] pointed the gun at her and said that if she 

told anyone, he would be back. Tanae indicated that she then went 

into the kitchen and observed [] Coover laying on the floor,

gasping for air.

Tanae’s sister, Martina Warren (hereinafter “Martina”), also 

testified relative to her observations on the date of the incident.

Martina testified that on January 16, 2020, she was at her 

stepmother’s house with Tanae, her father, her brother, her 

brother's friend, [] Coover, and Tanae’s baby. Martina confirmed 

that while she, Tanae, and Tanae’s infant son were sitting in the 

living room, [Gatti] entered the home with a gun and went

towards the kitchen where [] Coover was. Martina indicated that 

at that time she went to tend to her nephew, and she observed 

Tanae try to block [Gatti] from entering into the kitchen towards 

[] Coover. Martina testified that at this point, [Gatti] “threw 

[Tanae] across the room”. Martina indicated that she remained in 

the living room with her nephew, but she could hear one gun shot, 

a tussle including a pot of grease hit the wall, and then a second 

gun shot. Martina stated that after the second shot, she observed 

[Gatti] point the gun at them, say something to Tanae, and leave 

out of the same door that he came in.

Detective John Clark of the Westmoreland County 

Detective’s Bureau testified that he, along with Sergeant Nixon of 

the Arnold Police Department, canvased the area after the incident

and obtained video recordings from nearby residences containing 

footage from the incident which depicted gunshot noises followed 
J-S22010-24

- 3 -

by [Gatti] running in the direction of his vehicle. The video also 

depicted Gatti stop and put something in a Jeep in the alleyway. 

Detective John Swartz of the Westmoreland County District 

Attorney’s Office, Forensic Service Division testified that he 

located two fired shell casings and two cellphones laying on the

floor near [] Coover’s body; however, no firearms were recovered 

from the scene during the investigation.

At trial, the parties stipulated that forensic pathologist Dr. 

Cyril H. Wecht performed an autopsy of [] Coover and made the 

following findings:

A) a grazing bullet wound was found on the victim’s 

upper left arm with a bullet then entering his left chest 

wall and exiting the left chest wall. Aside from the

entry and exit wound, the bullet caused no other 

damage to any internal organs. The bullet travelled on 

a left to right trajectory and no wound is shown in

Commonwealth’s Exhibit 25. B) a bullet wound of 

entrance was located on the victim’s left chest wall. 

The bullet pierced his left lung and perforated his 

spine. The bullet was recovered from the victim’s 

back. It had a left to right trajectory. C) the cause of 

death of Michael Coover, Jr. was a hemothorax caused 

by the bullet that pierced his lung and perforated his 

spine. A hemothorax is a collection of blood between 

the chest wall and lung. The manner of death was 

homicide.

John Mandarin of the Westmoreland County District 

Attorney’s Office served as the lead detective on this case.

Detective Mandarin indicated that upon arrival on scene, he 

observed oil all over the floor in the kitchen and noticed the victim 

was deceased. After speaking with witnesses and investigating the 

incident, Detective Mandarin filed charges against [Gatti] for 

criminal homicide later in the day. Detective Mandarino indicated 

that he reviewed the video footage collected by Detective Clark 

and through an investigation, he identified the Jeep owner as 

Ciera Price and the gun owner as James Garland. After 

interviewing [] Garland, Detective Mandarino indicated that he 

recovered the firearm used in the murder. Detective Manderino 

also testified that the cellphones located near [] Coover’s body 

were examined, and text messages sent from [] Coover’s phone 
J-S22010-24

- 4 -

to [Gatti]’s phone were recovered. A forensic examination was 

performed and revealed text messages sent from [] Coover’s 

cellphone(s) to [Gatti]’s cellphone on November 17, 2019, 

November 18, 2019, November 20, 2019, December 14, 2019,

and January 16, 2020. The forensic examination also produced

two JPG images, one being a photograph of an AR 47 style rifle.

[] Price, who lived directly behind the residence in which the 

victim was staying, also testified about her involvement with 

[Gatti] on the date of the incident. [] Price testified that she 

returned home after purchasing a new vehicle, namely a 2014 

black Cherokee Latitude Jeep, and as the car was parked outside 

her home, she observed [Gatti] driving and yelled out his name.

According to [] Price, [Gatti] pulled up in front of her house and 

said hi to [] Price and her sister. [] Price indicated that she then 

got into her vehicle and began driving around; however, she 

began to experience car problems, and as she started to drive 

back to her home, she encountered [Gatti] again and observed 

him running up the alley before tossing a gun into her car. [] Price 

testified that [Gatti] said, “take this or I’ll kill you”, and he ran 

back to his car. [] Price indicated that she began driving, and when 

she was a couple of miles from home, she threw the gun out of 

her car onto the side of the road. [] Price testified that on the

following day, she called her friend James Garland and informed 

him about her encounter with [Gatti] and the events following 

their interaction. According to [] Price, [] Garland said that “he 

needed that gun”, and she drove him to the location, and he

immediately located the gun on the ground.

[] Garland, who was neighbors with [Gatti], testified that he 

provided [Gatti] with a gun for protection when their apartments 

were [shot] at on a prior occasion. [] Garland further corroborated 

the testimony of [] Price and acknowledged [] finding the gun after 

[] Price disposed of it. [] Garland said that he took the gun apart, 

hid part of the gun at his residence, and threw the barrel and the 

springs into the Allegheny River later that night. Detective Clark 

confirmed that he met with [] Garland and the gun was recovered 

from [] Garland’s residence; however, despite efforts, the barrel 

and springs were never recovered.

At the time of trial, Richard Paul Petros testified that he was 

currently incarcerated at the Westmoreland County Prison, and 

while there, he met [Gatti], and [Gatti] discussed this case with 

him. Specifically, [] Petros indicated [Gatti] confessed to shooting 
J-S22010-24

- 5 -

the victim. [] Petros stated [Gatti]’s demeanor was “jokingly”, 

“like bragging” when he was describing this case.

Detective Ray Dupilka of the Westmoreland County 

Detective’s Bureau testified that as part of this investigation he 

was assigned to assist in witness interviews and aided in the

collection of evidentiary items. Detective Dupilka’s testimony 

revealed that on February 5, 2020, he interviewed [Gatti]’s 

girlfriend, Amanda Dupree for information regarding her contact 

with [Gatti] following the incident. According to Detective Dupilka, 

[] Dupree informed him that she was with [Gatti] and her son in

Atlanta, Georgia after the incident.

Officer Matthew Morrison of the Jacksonville Beach Police 

Department testified that on April 19, 2020, he, along with other 

officers, located [Gatti] in Florida and took him into custody on an 

outstanding warrant. Officer Morrison testified [Gatti] initially 

indicated that his name was “Mark Eugene Williams”.

[Gatti] also elected to testify at trial. [Gatti] testified that he 

first met [] Coover through his girlfriend, [] Dupree. [Gatti] 

indicated that in the beginning of November he and [] Coover got 

into a fist fight over a dispute involving money. [Gatti] stated that 

a day or two later, he began getting text messages from two 

phone numbers who he believed were from [] Coover. 

Additionally, [Gatti] stated that someone shot into the house

where he was residing; someone shot at his neighbor's vehicle;

and he observed [] Coover shoot at him from a black vehicle when 

he was walking his dog. [Gatti] testified that approximately a 

week before Christmas, someone shot at him from the same black 

vehicle. [Gatti] never made any reports to police involving these 

or any prior incidents.

[Gatti]’s testimony revealed that on the date of the incident, 

he went to [] Coover’s residence for the purpose of “talking this 

out”. [Gatti] stated that he entered the residence with his gun in 

his coat pocket, observed [] Coover, pushed Tanae out of the way,

and stepped into the kitchen before being hit with grease. [Gatti]

indicated that he then slipped and fell on the grease, and as the 

gun was in his hand, the first shot went off. [Gatti] testified that 

[] Coover was still holding the pot at that time and it appeared 

that [] Coover was going to hit him with it so [Gatti] pulled the 

trigger. [Gatti] stated that he was afraid of getting hit by the pot. 
J-S22010-24

- 6 -

[Gatti] confirmed that he left the area because he was afraid of 

retaliation.

Opinion and Order of Court, 1/15/23, at 1-7 (citations omitted). 

On January 16, 2020, Gatti was charged by criminal complaint with one 

count each of criminal homicide, burglary, and possession of a firearm 

prohibited, and three counts each of recklessly endangering another person

(“REAP”), and terroristic threats. Charges for first-degree and second-degree 

murder were subsequently added. 

On October 21, 2022, following trial, a jury found Gatti guilty of firstdegree murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder,2 burglary, 

person not to possess a firearm, and all counts of REAP and terroristic threats.

Sentencing was deferred for preparation of a presentence investigation report 

(“PSI”). 

On January 13, 2023, the trial court sentenced Gatti to concurrent terms 

of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder 

and second-degree murder. The sentence for third-degree murder merged 

with the sentence for second-degree murder. Additionally, the court entered 

consecutive sentences to be served on the remaining charges. 

Gatti filed timely post-sentence motions: (1) a motion for a new trial on 

the grounds that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, and 

____________________________________________

2 Prior to deliberations, jury instructions were discussed, and third-degree 

murder and voluntary manslaughter were added to the verdict slip. 
J-S22010-24

- 7 -

(2) a motion to modify/vacate sentence, asserting the court abused its 

discretion by imposing consecutive sentences to the concurrent life sentences 

imposed for first and second-degree murder. Following a hearing on both 

motions, the court took the matter under advisement in order for the parties 

to submit briefs. The court subsequently denied the post-sentence motions. 

This timely appeal followed. 

Gatti raises the following issues on appeal: 

1. The guilty verdict rendered against [Gatti] was against the 

weight of the evidence. Specifically, the verdicts were against the 

weight of the evidence because the Commonwealth failed to 

disprove [Gatti’s] self-defense claims.

2. The [c]ourt abused its discretion by imposing consecutive

sentences to the concurrent life sentences imposed [for first and 

second-degree murder]. 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

In his first claim, Gatti contends the verdicts were against the weight of 

the evidence. Specifically, Gatti argues that he acted in self-defense and that 

the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to disprove self-defense. 

We do not review challenges to the weight of the evidence de novo on 

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009). 

Rather, we only review the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary judgment 

regarding the weight of the evidence presented at trial. See id.

“[W]e may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to 

the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. 

Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted). A verdict is said 
J-S22010-24

- 8 -

to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice when 

“the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal, or when the jury’s verdict, at the 

time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath, temporarily, and 

causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly shocking to the 

judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In advancing his weight challenge, Gatti claims the Commonwealth 

failed to disprove his self-defense claims. Gatti acknowledges that various 

witnesses testified that he entered the decedent’s residence unannounced and 

without knocking. See Appellant’s Brief, at 13. Despite this, Gatti insists his 

own testimony justified his intent in entering the residence. See id. at 13-14. 

The trial court set forth the relevant standard of review and concluded 

the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/15/23, at 9. The trial court found there was credible evidence from 

multiple witnesses to establish that Gatti did not act in self-defense. See id. 

at 9-11; see also Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1136 (Pa. 

2011) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

appellant’s weight challenge where the jury did not find appellant’s selfserving testimony credible). 

Essentially, Gatti asks us to reassess credibility determinations, which 

we cannot do. The jury as factfinder was free to believe all, some, or none of 

the testimony presented to them. See Commonwealth v. Frein, 206 A.3d 
J-S22010-24

- 9 -

1049, 1063 (Pa. 2019). By virtue of the verdict, it is clear the jury credited 

the testimony from the numerous witnesses, rather than Gatti’s own selfserving testimony. The witness testimony was consistent that Gatti entered 

the residence without permission, with a gun in his hand, immediately pushed 

his way to the kitchen where the victim was, and seconds later two shots were 

fired. This testimony was not so unreliable as to be based on conjecture. 

Rather, in light of the extensive testimony and evidence offered by the 

Commonwealth, which negated the elements of self-defense, the jury’s verdict 

does not shock one’s sense of justice. Accordingly, we cannot find the trial 

court abused its discretion. This issue is without merit. 

In his second and final issue, Gatti contends the trial court abused its 

discretion by imposing consecutive sentences to the concurrent life sentences 

imposed for first and second-degree murder. Gatti concedes this is a challenge 

to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. “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.” Commonwealth v. 

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

An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must 

invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test:

[W]e 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 
J-S22010-24

- 10 -

question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under 

the Sentencing Code, 42. Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).

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

omitted; brackets in original).

Here, Gatti preserved his issue through a timely post-sentence motion 

for reconsideration of sentence and filed a timely appeal. Further, counsel has 

included the required Rule 2119(f) statement. 

We must examine Gatti’s Rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether 

a substantial question exists. See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 

365 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the 

appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are 

necessary only to decide the appeal on the merits.” Id. (citation and emphases 

omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f).

Gatti “must show that there is a substantial question that the sentence 

imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” McAfee, 849 A.2d at 

274 (citation omitted). That is, “the sentence violates either a specific 

provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a 

particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.” Tirado, 870 

A.2d at 365 (citation omitted). “Additionally, we cannot look beyond the 

statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to 

determine whether a substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v. 

Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
J-S22010-24

- 11 -

Gatti asserts the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive 

sentences to the concurrent life sentences imposed. Specifically, Gatti

contends the court failed to outline its reasoning for imposing the aggregate

consecutive sentence in any form. In addition, Gatti asserts the court failed to 

consider mitigating information. Finally, Gatti argues that imposing

consecutive sentences served no legitimate purpose.

We have previously stated that a challenge to the imposition of 

consecutive rather than concurrent sentences does not present a substantial 

question. See Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 873 (Pa. Super. 

2005). However, our Court has recognized that a consecutive sentence can be 

so excessive that it may create a substantial question. See Commonwealth 

v. Moury, 992 A.2d at 171-72. In determining whether a substantial question 

has been raised, our focus is on “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 in the case.” 

Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 2010) 

(footnote omitted).

Gatti was convicted of three separate murder charges, burglary, a 

firearms offense, and multiple counts of terroristic threats and REAP. The court 

was required to impose a life sentence on the murder charges. The court then 

imposed an aggregate term of 21 to 45 years’ incarceration for the nonmurder charges, to be run consecutive to the life sentences. Although 
J-S22010-24

- 12 -

consecutive sentences to a life sentence may seem unnecessary on the 

surface, it is not manifestly excessive in light of the crimes Gatti committed. 

We cannot conclude the aggregate sentence was excessive when compared 

to Gatti’s criminal conduct. As such, Gatti’s challenge to the consecutive 

nature of his sentence does not raise a substantial question. See 

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez-Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 599 (Pa. Super. 

2010).

In any event, assuming, arguendo, that Gatti had presented a 

substantial question, thus permitting our review,3 we note the trial court heard 

and considered five victim impact statements, as well as a brief statement 

from Gatti on his own behalf. Further, the court reviewed and considered the 

PSI. After considering the above information, the court imposed the 

____________________________________________

3 On appeal, Gatti focuses almost exclusively on the trial court’s stated 

consideration of his lack of remorse. See Appellant’s Brief, at 16-17, 34-35. 

Notably, this argument is not included in Gatti’s 1925(b) concise statement, 

or in his Rule 2119(f) statement and could be considered waived for this 

reason alone. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). 

Further, Gatti has misrepresented the trial court’s reasoning for its sentence 

in its opinion. While the court did state that it considered Gatti’s lack of 

remorse, Gatti wholly ignores the multiple other reasons stated by the court. 

First, the court noted its consideration of the victim impact statements, 

counsel’s arguments, and Gatti’s own statement. See Trial Court Opinion, 

6/15/23, at 12. The court also noted its consideration of the PSI, which 

included relevant information about Gatti’s character and extensive prior 

criminal history. See id. Finally, his lack of remorse was only one 

consideration in a list of other factors considered, including the interest of all 

of the individual victims in this matter and the circumstances and severity of 

the offenses. See id. 
J-S22010-24

- 13 -

mandatory life sentences on the murder charges, and consecutive sentences

on the non-murder charges. 

Our review leads us to disagree with Gatti that the trial court abused its

discretion in formulating the consecutive sentences. Thus, even if we reached 

the merits of the issue, we would find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion. See Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 792–93 (Pa.

Super. 2010) (“Sentencing is vested in the discretion of the trial court and will 

not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of that discretion.”) (citation 

omitted).

As we find neither of Gatti’s issues merits relief, we affirm the judgment 

of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

August 30, 2024