J-S11045-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN HENRY JONES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 634 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 25, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000601-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JULY 27, 2023

Appellant, John Henry Jones, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his open guilty 

plea to possession of child pornography.

1

 We affirm. 

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows: 

On September 9, 2020, officers with the Allentown Police 

Department received a CyberTip Report from the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children that a Discord user 

with the profile name “HappyGoLucky#7504” uploaded 

images and videos containing child pornography using the 

platform. Officers investigated the tip and linked the 

username to an RCN IP address assigned to Appellant. 

Officers obtained a search warrant and executed the 

warrant at Appellant’s home located at 847 Constitution 

Drive, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania on 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d). 
J-S11045-23

- 2 -

September 23, 2020. Appellant denied using Discord, but 

admitted there was child pornography on a computer in his

bedroom. Officers seized several external hard drives 

attached via USB to the back of Appellant’s computer. 

Forensic investigators accessed the hard drives using 

passwords written down on a piece of paper which had been 

confiscated from Appellant’s bedroom and found various 

images and videos depicting child pornography. 

Additionally, the investigators located a Word document 

which was entitled “vetting and introduction” and detailed 

“a three-step process to admitting you to our chat rooms.” 

The instructions explained that a person needed to 

introduce him or herself, provide an image depicting child 

pornography, and compliance with the chat room’s rules of 

safety and behavior. 

Officers also located a document entitled “Technical Data”

explaining how to hide on the internet, Darknet, Clearnet, 

etc. and cautioning against the use of Bitcoin for child 

pornography purchases due to its capacity to be traced. In 

sum, officers located over 400,000 images of child 

pornography and over 200,000 images of child erotica on 

the hard drive. Another external hard drive contained over 

40,000 videos and images, and a third contained over 

14,000. 

During the preparation of the presentence investigation 

[(“PSI”)] report, Appellant admitted he was an 

administrator to a chat room where child pornography was 

shared and admitted creating the above-referenced 

documents. 

* * *

Appellant was arraigned on April 28, 2021 and charged with 

one count of possession of child pornography, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6312(d), graded as a felony of the second degree, and 

one count of dissemination of photos or films of child sex 

acts, [18 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6312(c), also graded as a felony of 

the second degree. On July 19, 2021, Appellant entered a 

guilty plea in the form of an open plea to one count of 

possession of child pornography. A PSI was ordered, and 

Appellant appeared before the [court] on October 25, 2021 

for sentencing. The court imposed a sentence of not less 
J-S11045-23

- 3 -

than two (2) nor more than ten (10) years in a state 

correctional institution.[2] Appellant filed a motion to 

reconsider and modify sentence on November 3, 2021. That 

motion was denied on February 8, 2022. 

On March 3, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The 

court entered an order on July 6, 2022 directing Appellant 

to file a [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal. Appellant filed that statement on 

July 21, 2022. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/5/22, at 1-3) (internal footnote and some 

capitalization omitted). 

Appellant now raises the following issue for our review: 

Is the sentencing of an eighty-one (81) year old individual 

in poor health to a maximum sentence of ten (10) years for 

one count of possession of child pornography on a computer 

manifestly excessive as such sentence, in essence, amounts 

to a life sentence? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 7). 

On appeal, Appellant emphasizes that he was eighty-one (81) years of 

age at the time of sentencing. Appellant also asserts that he suffers from 

various maladies, “including the need for a full time 24 hours/7 days a week 

heart monitor with defibrillator as well as diabetes and kidney disease.” (Id.

at 14). Considering his life expectancy, Appellant maintains that the court’s 

____________________________________________

2 With an offense gravity score of eight (8) and a prior record score of three 

(3), the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines provided for a minimum 

sentence of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months. (See N.T. Sentencing 

Hearing, 10/25/21, at 4). Additionally, the statutory maximum sentence for 

possession of child pornography, graded as a second-degree felony, was ten 

(10) years. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(2). 
J-S11045-23

- 4 -

imposition of a ten (10) year maximum is effectively a sentence of life 

imprisonment. Appellant contends that the court did not provide sufficient 

reasons to justify the maximum sentence imposed. Moreover, Appellant 

insists that his maximum sentence is a product of partiality and prejudice 

because the court knew “it was very unlikely that [Appellant] would live that 

long.” (Id. at 16). Appellant concludes that the court imposed a manifestly 

excessive and unreasonable maximum sentence, which this Court must 

vacate. As presented, Appellant’s claim challenges the discretionary aspects 

of his sentence. See Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135

(Pa.Super. 2011) (explaining claim that court imposed excessive sentence by 

deviating from sentencing norms constituted challenge to discretionary 

aspects of sentencing). 

“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an 

appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 

103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264, 129 S.Ct. 2450, 174 

L.Ed.2d 240 (2009). Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary aspects of 

sentencing issue: 

[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 question that the sentence appealed 

from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). 
J-S11045-23

- 5 -

Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 589 Pa. 727, 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. 

Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)). 

When appealing the discretionary aspects of a sentence, an appellant 

must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by including in his brief a separate concise 

statement demonstrating a substantial question as to the appropriateness of 

the sentence under the Sentencing Code. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 

Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). “The requirement that an 

appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal 

furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any 

challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging 

on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Phillips, supra at 112 

(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 

162, 170 (Pa.Super. 2010). “A substantial question exists only when the 

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

(en banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 774, 126 A.3d 1282 (2015) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)). An appellant 
J-S11045-23

- 6 -

raises a substantial question where he claims the court failed to offer specific 

reasons that comport with statutory considerations for extending a standardrange sentence to the statutory maximum. See Coulverson, supra at 143. 

Instantly, Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, he preserved his 

issue in his post-sentence motion, and his brief included a Rule 2119(f) 

statement. Further, Appellant’s claim raises a substantial question as to the 

appropriateness of the sentence imposed by asserting that the court did not 

provide an adequate justification for imposing a statutory maximum sentence. 

See id. Accordingly, we proceed to address the merits of Appellant’s issue. 

This Court reviews discretionary sentencing challenges based on the 

following standard:

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. An abuse of 

discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on 

appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its 

discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment

exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of 

partiality, bias or ill-will. 

Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 55 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super. 2000)). 

“[A] court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the 

offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 

A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super. 2002), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148, 125 S. Ct. 2984, 

162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005). “In particular, the court should refer to the 

defendant’s prior criminal record, his age, personal characteristics and his 
J-S11045-23

- 7 -

potential for rehabilitation.” Id. 

A sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse 

for its reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically 

reference the statute in question[.] [W]hen a trial court 

imposes a sentence that is within the statutory limits, there 

is no abuse of discretion unless the sentence is manifestly 

excessive so as to inflict too severe a punishment.

Commonwealth v. Conklin, 275 A.3d 1087, 1098 (Pa.Super. 2022) (internal 

citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Instantly, the court provided the following statement of reasons to 

support the sentence imposed:

As I stated before, the record should reflect that I have 

reviewed the extensive presentence memo submitted by 

[defense counsel] with the written letter from [Appellant’s] 

daughter as well as the three reports from [Appellant’s 

mental healthcare provider]. The presentence investigation 

report had various attachments as well, which were 

reviewed by the court. 

[Appellant], I’m always a little struck by the fact that 

defendants apologize to the court. There’s no need to 

apologize to me. This is what I signed up for in a way, I 

guess. So these are the kind of things that judges have to 

address. And I appreciate and respect the comments made 

by your daughter in her letter and your son in his testimony 

today. I think it’s very important you have that support 

network available to you. 

And my comments that I’m next about to offer are not 

meant to distress your children. So I’m going to give them 

the opportunity to leave the room if they want so they don’t 

hear about the depiction of the pornographic images which 
J-S11045-23

- 8 -

were in possession of [Appellant3]. 

* * *

And this was all after [Appellant’s] federal conviction for 

when he was found to possess 20,000 images of child 

pornography after initially releasing 300 visual depictions.

He was enrolled in sex offender treatment at Forensic 

Treatment Services. After 6 to 9 months, he was 

unsuccessfully discharged after they discovered he was 

viewing adult pornography. On page seven of the PSI, it 

does reflect that [Appellant] was sexually assaulted as a 

four-year-old, with that perpetrator never being prosecuted. 

He admitted to being aroused by children since he was a 

kid, adding that they have beautiful faces, good

personalities. He was attracted to both male and female pre 

and early pubescent children. And last sentence on page 

seven, “I got stuck into it by accident, it’s alluring, it’s not 

really that bad of a problem.” 

So while I understand the Sexual Offender’s Assessment

Board has determined that he is not to be classified as a 

sexually violent predator, [Appellant], quite frankly, if 

individuals like yourself and others did not view these 

images, there would not be the motivation by those who 

compile and then distribute these images subjecting 

children to sexual assaults and victimization, even though 

you never may come in personal contact with them. 

I will give you credit for your frankness with the prosecuting 

officers in releasing the information and for entering a plea 

and perhaps sparing a jury the details of this. However, I 

do not feel it’s appropriate to place you on house arrest. 

* * *

You’re going to state prison for two to ten years. I kept the 

____________________________________________

3 At this point, the court described the specific pornographic images recovered 

from Appellant’s electronic devices. (See N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 23-24). 

Due to the graphic nature of these images, we decline to include the 

descriptions. 
J-S11045-23

- 9 -

sentence at the top of the standard range in light of your 

admission to this offense, your voluntary participation to 

release the images involved to the prosecutors and in light 

of your age and health conditions. Certainly, an aggravated

sentence would have been warranted, but because of the 

factors I just announced this is a standard range sentence. 

(N.T. Sentencing Hearing at 22-25, 28) (some capitalization omitted). 

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court reiterated the factors that it 

weighed when crafting Appellant’s sentence: 

The [c]ourt considered the PSI and sentencing 

memorandum submitted by defense counsel. Appellant had 

an extensive collection of child pornography on his 

computer. As the administrator of a Discord server or chat 

room, he also played a role in the further dissemination of 

these images. By the same token, he cooperated with the 

police officers, admitted his offense, and is of advanced age 

and has health conditions. The sentence imposed balanced 

all of these factors and was appropriate under these 

circumstances. 

(Trial Court Opinion at 6-7). 

Here, the court properly weighed the relevant factors, including

Appellant’s age and health, in fashioning the sentence. See Griffin, supra. 

We emphasize that a court need not undertake a lengthy discourse to support 

the sentence imposed, and we cannot fault the justifications provided here. 

See Conklin, supra. Further, the presence of a PSI report allows us to 

presume that the court considered mitigating factors, and the court’s 

discretion while using a PSI report should not be disturbed. See 

Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa.Super. 2005) (stating if 

sentencing court has benefit of PSI report, law presumes court was aware of 
J-S11045-23

- 10 -

relevant information regarding defendant’s character and weighed those 

considerations along with mitigating factors). Under these circumstances, we 

see no abuse of discretion. See McNabb, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/27/2023