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 Co mmon 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 Appella nt 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 CO URT IMPOSED HARSH AN D UNREASONABLE SE NTENCES?

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3).J

- S43006

- 19

- 2

- WHETHER THE TRIAL CO URT ERRED WHEN IT DI D NOT IMPOSE CONCURRENT SE NTENCES?
WHETHER THE TRIAL CO URT FAILED TO STATE ON THE RECORD ACKNOWLEDGEME NT OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES OR THE RE ASONS FOR THE SENTEN CES 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 com prehensively 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, sente nces 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 , wh ich 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 deterJ

- 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 offe nses) . 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 /20/2019Circulated 08/27/2019 11:32 AM