J-S82010-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KIMBERLY A. TUTKO

Appellant No. 213 MDA 2016 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0005680-2014

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2017

Kimberly Tutko appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on 

December 16, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

following her guilty plea to charges of third-degree murder, aggravated 

assault and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC),1

regarding the death by starvation of her nine-year-old son, and near death 

by starvation of her ten-year-old daughter. The only condition of sentencing 

pursuant to the plea was that the sentences associated with the death of her 

son (murder and EWOC) run concurrent with the charges associated with the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c), 2702(a)(9), and 4304(a)(1), respectively. EWOC 

was classified as a third-degree felony pursuant to § 4304(b) regarding 

course of conduct.
J-S82010-16

- 2 -

harm caused to her daughter (aggravated assault and EWOC). Tutko 

received an aggregate sentence of 20 to 40 years’ incarceration.2 In this 

timely appeal, Tutko challenges the discretionary aspect of her sentence, 

claiming her sentence for murder is manifestly excessive in that the 

sentencing court failed to give adequate weight to the mitigating 

circumstances presented. After a thorough review of the submissions by the 

parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm.

The facts underlying the charges against Tutko3are truly disturbing 

and well-known to the parties. We state, in general terms, that her son, 

nine-years-old at the time of his passing, weighed less than 17 pounds and 

was covered in his own waste. He was kept locked in a room without a 

working light or sanitary facilities. He suffered extreme dental neglect, 

which a forensic dental expert concluded caused significant pain. Tutko’s 

daughter, who had previously suffered a debilitating brain injury, was 

similarly neglected and covered in filth; ear wax flowed from her ears to her 

face and her eyes were so encrusted she could not open them. Her body 

____________________________________________

2 Specifically, 18 to 36 years’ incarceration for third degree murder and two 

to four years’ incarceration, consecutive, for EWOC. Tutko’s sentence for the 

crimes against her daughter, aggravated assault, five to years’ incarceration, 

followed by two to four years’ incarceration for EWOC, are to be served 

concurrently with the sentence for murder.

3 Tutko’s husband was similarly charged, with an additional charge of 

concealing the death of a child. We are unaware if he has filed an appeal; if 

he has filed an appeal, it is not before this panel.
J-S82010-16

- 3 -

was so twisted from neglect and malnutrition that her spine impinged upon 

her lungs. She was near death when taken from the Tutko home.4

Tutko now claims that the 18-36 year sentence imposed for the 

murder of her son was manifestly excessive in that the sentencing court 

failed to give proper weight to the fact that her husband abused her.5 This 

claim represents a challenge to the discretionary aspect of her sentence.

This Court has held, “[w]here an appellant challenges the 

discretionary aspects of a sentence, there is no automatic right 

to appeal and an appellant's appeal should be considered a 

petition for allowance of appeal.” Commonwealth v. Crork, 

966 A.2d 585, 590 (Pa. Super. 2009).

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.

Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1286 (Pa. Super. 

2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 

1250 Pa. Super. 2006)).

* * *

The determination of what constitutes a substantial 

question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A 

substantial question exists “only when the appellant 

____________________________________________

4 All underlying facts are taken from the notes of testimony of the guilty 

plea, see N.T. Guilty Plea, 10/26/2015 at 5-10, and the Grand Jury Report, 

see Grand Jury Report # 3, 5/28/2015 at 2-3, 29-32.

5 Tutko does not challenge the sentence imposed regarding the crimes 

against her daughter, which run concurrent to the murder sentence.
J-S82010-16

- 4 -

advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's 

actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific 

provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the 

fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing 

process.”

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(internal citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 825-26 (Pa. Super. 2015).

Here, the appeal is timely and the issue has been preserved in both a 

post-sentence motion for reconsideration and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. 

The final question is whether the claim represents a substantial question. 

Case law is split as to whether an assertion that a sentence is excessive due 

to the failure to properly consider and weigh the mitigating circumstances 

represents a substantial question. Compare Commonwealth v. DiSalvo, 

70 A.3d 900 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to give adequate weight to mitigating 

circumstances does not present a substantial question), Commonwealth v. 

Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same), with Commonwealth v. 

Gonzalez 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015 (failure to consider mitigating 

circumstance presents a substantial question), Commonwealth v. Raven, 

97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same).

Given that the plea was to third-degree murder and other related 

charges, we will accept Tutko’s claim as presenting a substantial question. 

Having made this determination, we are mindful that,

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 
J-S82010-16

- 5 -

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.

* * *

When imposing sentence, a court is required to consider the 

particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the 

defendant. In considering these factors, the court should refer to 

the defendant's prior criminal record, age, personal 

characteristics and potential for rehabilitation.

Commonwealth v. Kearns, ___ A.3d ___, 2016 PA Super. 238, at *4, 

(November 7, 2016) (citations omitted).

The certified record in this matter is replete with details of the crimes 

committed. Said details are found in the affidavit of probable cause in the 

arrest warrant, the notes of testimony of the guilty plea, the pre-sentence 

report, the report from the indicting grand jury, as well as from the 

sentencing hearing. Details of Tutko’s life are also found throughout the 

record, especially in the pre-sentence report and sentencing hearing. During 

the sentencing hearing, the trial judge demonstrated his familiarity with said 

details by recounting an episode in which one of Tutko’s sons stood between 

her and husband, absorbing abuse intended for her. See N.T. Sentencing 

Hearing, 12/16/2015 at 14. The trial judge also agreed that Tutko had 

suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband. Id. at 22. Before 

issuing the sentence, the trial judge stated:

As I’ve indicated, I’ve reviewed the presentence report, all of the 

notes, listened to the testimony. As I indicated earlier, I’ve had 

an intimate knowledge of this case. I’ve handled both the 
J-S82010-16

- 6 -

dependency/Children and Youth side and criminal side. I’ve 

listened to all the background. I’ve listened to this woman being 

involved and taking part in for six [sic] of them – five of them, 

excuse me, the termination of her parental rights to her children. 

And that is the speaker that is blaring to this Court – nine 

children taken away, and, worse, one taken away by third 

degree murder. She bears that same responsibility.

Id. at 31.

The 18-36 year sentence for third degree murder is a standard range 

sentence. 

Since the sentencing court had and considered a presentence

report, this fact alone was adequate to support the sentence, 

and due to the court's explicit reliance on that report, we are 

required to presume that the court properly weighed the 

mitigating factors present in the case.

Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758, 766 (Pa. Super. 2006).

The certified record amply demonstrates that not only did the trial 

court read and consider the presentence report, it read, listened to and 

considered other relevant factors, which, as noted above, included additional 

information about the abuse suffered by Tutko. We have discovered nothing 

in the certified record to support Tutko’s claim that the trial court failed to 

give the proper weight to the mitigating circumstances applicable to Tutko’s 

situation. Therefore, we find the trial court neither abused its discretion nor 

committed an error of law in passing sentence. Accordingly, Tutko’s claim 

must fail.
J-S82010-16

- 7 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/9/2017