J-S43006-19

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CURTIS LEE MAHNKE

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 394 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 22, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-CR-0000740-2018

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

Appellant, Curtis Lee Mahnke, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

negotiated guilty plea to two counts of simple assault.1 We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the relevant facts and 

most of the procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to 

restate them. We add that on March 7, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied on March 25, 2019. 

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED HARSH AND 

UNREASONABLE SENTENCES?

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3). 
J-S43006-19

- 2 -

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT 

IMPOSE CONCURRENT SENTENCES?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO STATE ON THE 

RECORD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SENTENCING

GUIDELINES OR THE REASONS FOR THE SENTENCES 

IMPOSED AS REQUIRED?

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael J. 

Barrasse, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 9, 2019, at 3-10) (finding: (1-

3) Appellant arguably does not present substantial question, where court 

imposed sentences within guidelines, sentences otherwise conformed to 

sentencing norms, and were appropriate under facts and circumstances of 

case; moreover, Appellant’s standard range sentence is not unduly harsh or 

excessive or result of bias on part of court; court had benefit of PSI report, 

which contained Appellant’s relevant history and background, as well as 

particular circumstances of underlying offenses; court also considered 

Appellant’s mental health issue, which he had neglected to address until 

charged with underlying offenses; in light of escalating violent nature of 

Appellant's behavior and his reckless use of firearm, less restrictive 

punishment would depreciate seriousness of Appellant’s actions; court 

considered circumstances of offenses, impact on community, need to deter 
J-S43006-19

- 3 -

Appellant and others from committing this type of offense, and protection of 

community; also, sentencing court had discretion to order consecutive 

sentences; in light of violent criminal conduct at issue, Appellant was not 

entitled to “volume discount” for his offenses). The record supports the trial 

court’s rationale. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/20/2019
Circulated 08/27/2019 11:32 AM