J-S46036-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 82 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000009-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 83 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000007-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 84 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000001-2016
J-S46036-17

- 2 -

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 85 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000522-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY J. HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 86 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000477-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES HANNIGAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 87 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-66-CR-0000476-2015
J-S46036-17

- 3 -

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017

Appellant Timothy James Hannigan appeals the judgment of sentence 

entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County after Appellant 

pled guilty to numerous counts of burglary and criminal conspiracy to 

commit burglary. Appellant claims the lower court should have imposed 

concurrent sentences instead of consecutive sentences as Appellant 

committed the offenses in a crime spree. We affirm.

On August 10, 2015, Appellant, along with Justin Kowalewski and 

James Skaluba, committed two burglaries in Eaton Township, breaking into 

Bill’s Used Tires and the New Shoe Store with intent to commit theft. On 

August 11, 2015, Appellant, individually or along with Justin Kowalewski and 

James Skaluba, committed two burglaries in Tunkhannock Borough, 

breaking into Liberty Tax Services and Deer Park Lumber with intent to 

commit theft. On the same day, Appellant, along with Justin Kowalewski 

and James Skaluba, attempted to burglarize Tioga Street Laundry in 

Tunkhannock Borough, but were unable to gain entry. On August 15, 2015, 

Appellant, individually or with an accomplice, committed one burglary in 

Tunkhannock Borough, breaking into Harding’s Dairy Bar with intent to 

commit theft. No one was present in any of the businesses when the 

burglaries were committed.

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S46036-17

- 4 -

Appellant was charged with each burglary or attempted burglary along 

with multiple counts of conspiracy to commit burglary, criminal trespass, 

theft by unlawful taking, and criminal mischief. While the parties sought to 

allow Appellant to plead guilty to three counts of burglary, the lower court 

entered an order on May 2, 2016, rejecting this plea agreement. 

On September 2, 2016, Appellant entered a new plea agreement to 

four counts of burglary (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a)(4)) and two counts of 

conspiracy to commit burglary (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903). Appellant also agreed 

to pay restitution to the victims. The lower court accepted this guilty plea. 

On November 9, 2016, the lower court sentenced Appellant as follows:

CR-476-2015 [Burglary - Liberty Tax Service]: 16-36 months in 

state prison with 454 days’ credit;

CR-477-2015 [Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Burglary - Tioga 

Street Laundry]: 12-24 months in state prison to run 

consecutive to CR-476-2015;

CR-522-2015 [Burglary - Deer Park Lumber]: 12-24 months in 

state prison to run consecutive to CR-477-2015;

CR-1-2016: [Burglary - Harding’s Dairy Bar]: 16-36 months in 

state prison to run consecutive to CR-522-2015;

CR-9-2016 [Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Burglary - New Shoe 

Store]: 16-36 months in state prison to run consecutive to CR-1-

2016; and

CR-7-2016 [Burglary- Bill’s Used Tires]: 12-24 months in state 

prison to run consecutive to CR-9-2016.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/17, at 4. The remaining charges were nol prossed. 

As a result, Appellant received an aggregate sentence of seven to fifteen 

years’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration, in 

which the trial court amended the imposed restitution amounts but denied 

the remainder of the motion. Appellant filed this timely appeal.
J-S46036-17

- 5 -

Appellant raises one issue for review on appeal, claiming the trial court 

failed to “acknowledge that several of the crimes constituted a crime spree 

when it fashioned the sentence such that the sentencing should have 

incorporated concurrent sentences.” Appellant’s Brief, at 15. Appellant 

claims his argument implicates the discretionary aspects of his sentence.

It is well-established that “[a] challenge to the discretionary aspects of 

sentencing does not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” 

Commonwealth v. Bynum-Hamilton, 135 A.3d 179, 184 (Pa.Super. 

2016). In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to address such a 

challenge, the appellant must satisfy the following four-part test: the 

appellant must (1) file a timely notice of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 902, 

903; (2) preserve the issues at sentencing or in a timely post-sentence 

motion pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) ensure that the appellant’s brief 

does not have a fatal defect as set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) set 

forth a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). Id. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, preserved his sentencing claim 

before the trial court, and submitted a Rule 2119(f) statement in his 

appellate brief.

We may now determine whether Appellant has raised a substantial 

question for our review. 

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 advances a colorable 
J-S46036-17

- 6 -

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. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015). 

(internal citations omitted). 

With respect to a lower court’s decision to impose consecutive 

sentences, our Court has provided the following:

Although Pennsylvania's system stands for individualized 

sentencing, the court is not required to impose the “minimum 

possible” confinement. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721, the court 

has discretion to impose sentences consecutively or concurrently 

and, ordinarily, a challenge to this exercise of discretion does not 

raise a substantial question. The imposition of consecutive, 

rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial 

question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where 

the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature 

of the crimes and the length of imprisonment. 

Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171–72 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(citations omitted). 

Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court should have imposed 

concurrent sentences for burglaries he committed on a “spree,” which he 

defines as crimes committed on “the same date, at approximately the same 

time, in close proximity to one another and without law-abiding behavior in 

between.” Appellant’s Brief, at 23. As a result, Appellant contends that the 

trial court should have imposed concurrent sentences with respect to the two 

burglaries he committed on August 11, 2015 at Bill’s Used Tires and the New 

Shoe Store. Appellant also contends the trial court should have imposed 

concurrent sentences with respect to the August 12, 2015 burglaries and 
J-S46036-17

- 7 -

attempted burglary of Deer Park Lumber, Liberty Tax Service, and Tioga 

Street Laundry.

Despite Appellant’s suggestion that he should be rewarded for 

committing multiple burglaries in a short period of time, Appellant is not 

entitled to a “volume discount” for his crimes by having all sentences run 

concurrently. See Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa.Super. 

1995). Other than this bald assertion, Appellant makes no attempt to 

articulate any other reasons why the consecutive sentences in this case are 

unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa.Super. 

2013) (providing that a “bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive 

nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question”). As such, 

Appellant has not raised a substantial question for our review. Accordingly, 

we conclude that Appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his 

sentence is meritless.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2017