J-A05045-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

STEPHEN BRADSHAW 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 813 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 23, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-41-CR-0000004-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2022

Appellant Stephen Bradshaw appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County on December 23, 

2019, following his guilty plea.

1

 We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 The trial court docket indicates that Appellant was sentenced on December 

23, 2019. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion on January 2, 2020, 

which was denied on April 7, 2020. On October 16, 2020, Appellant filed a 

timely pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed, and an amended petition 

was filed on March 29, 2021. On June 2, 2021, the trial court granted 

Appellant’s PCRA petition and reinstated Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc 

pro tunc. Counsel for Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 23, 2021, in 

which counsel erroneously had stated that the appeal was from the “Order 

entered on May 25, 2021,” granting nunc pro tunc relief, rather than from the 

December 23, 2021, judgment of sentence.

 By order of July 13, 2021, Appellant was directed to show cause as to why 

the appeal should not be quashed as Appellant is not an aggrieved party. 

Counsel for Appellant filed a motion to amend the notice of appeal in the trial

court on July 14, 2021. The trial court granted the motion on July 20, 2021,

and the amended notice of appeal was forwarded to this Court. The amended

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05045-22

- 2 -

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein 

as follows:

By way of background, Appellant was charged with twenty 

counts related to the possession and delivery of controlled 

substances and the criminal use of communication facilities.1 On 

October 4, 2019, Appellant entered an open guilty plea to four 

counts of delivery of heroin, two counts of delivery of cocaine, and 

four counts of criminal use of a communication facility, arising out 

of incidents that occurred on November 14, 2018; November 20, 

2018; December 3, 2018; and December 10, 2018.2 Appellant 

admitted that on November 14, 2018 and November 20, 2018 he 

delivered heroin to a third party and utilized a cellular telephone 

to arrange the transactions. Appellant also admitted that on

December 3, 2018 and December 10, 2018, he delivered heroin 

and cocaine to a third person utilizing a cellular telephone to 

arrange the transactions.

On December 23, 2019, the court sentenced Appellant to 

undergo incarceration in a state correctional institution for an 

aggregate term of eight (8) to twenty (20) years, which consisted 

of two (2) to four (4) years for each delivery of heroin to be served 

consecutively to each other.3

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence. He 

alleged that his sentence was excessive because: the 

Commonwealth never made an offer; the court failed to provide 

sufficient weight to Appellant's good behavior while incarcerated; 

despite Appellant's minimization of his mental health and 

substance use disorders, Appellant actually suffers from such; the 

court did not accord sufficient weight to the fact that Appellant 

was never convicted of any crimes of violence or of a sexual 

nature; and Appellant pled guilty and did not proceed to trial. In 

____________________________________________

notice of appeal states that the appeal is “from the Judgment of Sentence on

December 23, 2019, whereby his direct appeal rights were reinstated nunc 

pro tunc by order entered on May 25, 2021 [sic].” See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(1)

(The trial court may take such action to preserve the status quo including 

“correct formal errors in papers relating to the matter”). Counsel filed a copy 

of the amended notice of appeal with this Court on July 22, 2021, and a 

response to the show-cause order on July 23, 2021, documenting the steps 

taken in the trial court. 
J-A05045-22

- 3 -

an Opinion and Order entered on April 7, 2020, the court denied 

Appellant's motion for reconsideration of sentence.

Although Appellant wished to appeal his sentence, no appeal 

was filed within thirty (30) days due to a breakdown in 

communication between Appellant and his plea counsel due at 

least in part to the pandemic. Through PCRA proceedings, 

however, the court reinstated Appellant's direct appeal rights nunc 

pro tunc in an order dated May 25, 2021 and docketed on June 2, 

2021.

____

1 35 P.S.A. § 780-113(a)(16),(30); 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 7512.

2

In a prior Opinion and Order, the court incorrectly stated that 

the dates were November 3, 10, 14 and 20.

3 On each of the remaining counts of delivery of cocaine and 

criminal use of a communication facility, the court imposed a 

concurrent sentence of one (1) to three (3) years’ incarceration.

Trial Court’s Opinion in Support of Order in Compliance with Rule 1925(a) of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed September 21, 2021, at 1-2. 

Following the reinstatement of his direct appeal rights, Appellant filed a 

timely notice of appeal on June 23, 2021. On June 29, 2021, the trial court 

entered its Order directing Appellant to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, and Appellant filed his Concise Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal on July 20, 2021. The trial court filed its Opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on September 21, 2021.

In his brief, Appellant presents the following Statement of Questions 

Involved:

1. Whether the consecutive application of the sentences

renders the total sentence excessive?

2. Whether court erred in considering the national impact of 

drug addiction and overdose when imposing sentence, 

and speculating that individuals may have died as a 

result of defendant's conduct?
J-A05045-22

- 4 -

3. Whether [the] court erred in concluding that [Appellant]

needs to be warehoused and that he is incapable of 

rehabilitation, essentially disregarding the mitigating 

factors in the case?

Brief for Appellant at 4.2

It is well-settled that a guilty plea amounts to a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses; therefore, a defendant generally may 

appeal only matters concerning the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of the 

guilty plea, and the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 

173 A.3d 286, 290 (Pa.Super. 2017). However, when a defendant pleads 

guilty without an agreement as to the sentence, he or she may challenge the 

discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. Commonwealth v. Brown, 

240 A.3d 970, 972 (Pa.Super. 2020). 

The aforementioned issues implicate the discretionary aspects of 

Appellant’s sentence. See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 169 

(Pa.Super. 2010) (stating challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences for 

multiple counts of same crime and failure to consider mitigating factors 

implicate the discretionary aspects of one’s sentence). Notwithstanding, such 

a challenge is not appealable as of right. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). Instead,

an appellant challenging the sentencing court's discretion must 

invoke this Court's jurisdiction by (1) filing a timely notice of 

appeal; (2) properly preserving the issue at sentencing or in a 

motion to reconsider and modify the sentence; (3) complying with 

____________________________________________

2

In a letter filed with this Court’s Prothonotary on November 29, 2021, the 

Commonwealth indicated that it would not be filing an appellate brief. 
J-A05045-22

- 5 -

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f), which requires a separate section of the brief 

setting forth “a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for 

allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a 

sentence[;]” and (4) presenting a substantial question that the 

sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing 

Code[.]

Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307, 328 (Pa.Super. 2019) 

(citation omitted). Following satisfaction of all four elements, this Court then 

reviews the underlying discretionary aspects of sentencing issues pursuant to 

an abuse of discretion standard. See id., at 328-29.

Herein, Appellant has satisfied the first three prongs by filing a timely 

notice of appeal nunc pro tunc, filing a post-sentence motion seeking 

reconsideration of his sentence, and including within his brief a statement 

pursuant to Rule 2119(f). See Brief for Appellant at 10-11. As such, we 

review Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement to ascertain whether he has 

presented a substantial question that evinces an incongruency between the 

sentence he received and the Sentencing Code as written.

Appellant argues in his Rule 2119(f) statement that his appeal presents 

a substantial question because the consecutive nature of his sentences 

resulted in an unreasonable, excessive minimum and maximum sentence for 

nonviolent offenses. Appellant further contends the trial court considered an 

impermissible factor, specifically expressing wonder about the number of drug 

overdoses in 2017 nationwide, and failed to properly consider significant 

mitigating factors in Appellant’s personal background when imposing its 

sentence. Brief for Appellant at 10-11. 
J-A05045-22

- 6 -

While “[a]n allegation that the sentencing court failed to consider

mitigating factors generally does not necessarily raise a substantial question,” 

see Moury, supra at 171 (citation omitted), “[a] claim that a sentencing 

court ... sentenced a defendant without taking into account his ... character 

and background ... raises a substantial question that the sentence is 

inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 

A.3d 1149, 1162 (Pa.Super. 2017); see also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 

109 A.3d 711, 731 n.38 (Pa.Super. 2015) (“[A] substantial question exists 

when the defendant asserts both a claim of excessiveness and the trial court's

failure to take mitigating circumstances into account.”).

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Appellant's challenge to the 

imposition of his consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with his 

claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs and mitigating 

factors and considered inappropriate factors upon fashioning its sentence, 

raises a substantial question. Thus, we proceed to address the merits of his 

sentencing claims. Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 

(Pa.Super. 2015). Our standard of review of a sentencing claim is as follows:

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 

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.

Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa.Super. 2006).
J-A05045-22

- 7 -

Notably, the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation 

(PSI) report prior to sentencing. “[W]here the trial court is informed by a presentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate 

sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so 

informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. 

Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citation omitted). In 

addition, we can assume the court was aware of the relevant information 

regarding Appellant’s character and weighed those considerations along with 

mitigating statutory factors. Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 

(Pa.Super. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Moreover, Appellant’s sentence was within the standard range of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Such sentences are considered appropriate under the 

Sentencing Code. See Moury, supra at 171. If both conditions exist 

concurrently, a PSI report and standard range sentence cannot be considered

excessive or unreasonable absent some indicia clearly evidencing the 

contrary. See id.

 When considering the claims Appellant raises herein, the trial court 

stated the following: 

Appellant first contends that the sentence of the court was 

excessive due to the consecutive application of the sentences. The 

court cannot agree.

A sentencing judge has discretion to impose consecutive 

sentences. 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9721(a)(in determining the sentence to 

be imposed the court shall consider and select one or more of the 

listed sentencing alternatives, and may impose them 
J-A05045-22

- 8 -

consecutively or concurrently.); Commonwealth v. Brown, 249 

A.3d 1206, 1212 (Pa. Super. 2021)( the court has the discretion 

to impose its sentences concurrently or consecutively); 

Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. 

2014)(imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences 

lies within the discretion of the sentencing court). The appellate 

court will not disturb consecutive sentences unless the aggregate 

sentence is “grossly disparate” to the defendant's conduct, or 

viscerally appears as patently unreasonable. Brown, supra. 

“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the 

guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate 

under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 

932, 938 (Pa.Super. 2013). Furthermore, a defendant is not 

entitled to a volume discount for his crimes by having all 

sentences run concurrently. Zirkle, 107 A.3d at 134; 

Commonwealth v. Haag, 665 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa.Super. 1995).

The court reviewed a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) 

report, a risk/needs assessment, a supervision report from prior 

supervision, a social assessment prepared at the request of 

defense counsel, and a report from the Lycoming County Prison. 

The court also heard arguments from counsel and a statement 

from Appellant.

Appellant’s prior criminal record consisted of five separate 

prior convictions for the manufacture, delivery or possession with 

intent to deliver (PWID) a controlled substance, ungraded 

felonies; a conviction for identity theft, a felony of the third 

degree; a conviction for possession of a controlled substance, an 

ungraded misdemeanor; and a conviction for possession of a small 

amount of marijuana, an ungraded misdemeanor. Appellant was 

sentenced to probation, county prison and state sentences for his 

prior convictions. Sentencing Transcript, 12/23/2019, at 3. 

Nothing deterred Appellant's criminal activities or changed his 

ways. He just served his sentences and then continued to traffic

controlled substances. Most, if not all, of Appellant's crime free 

periods were explainable by his incarceration. Id. at 9. Moreover, 

Appellant admitted that he did not need the money; he simply 

wanted to “live comfortably.” Id. at 4.

Although Appellant does not consider himself an addict, he 

admitted that he has used drugs for 28 years and he has no desire 

to stop. Sentencing Transcript, at 4, 6.

Appellant's Prior Record Score (PRS) was five but if the 

guidelines did not cap the point-score at five,4 his true score would 

have been 12. The Offense Gravity Score was six for the deliveries 

of heroin; it was five for the remaining offenses. Therefore, the
J-A05045-22

- 9 -

standard minimum sentencing guideline ranges were 21 to 27 

months for each delivery of heroin, and 12 to 18 months for each 

of the remaining offenses.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 2 to 5 years’

incarceration for each delivery of heroin, but imposed concurrent 

sentences of 1 to 3 years’ incarceration for delivery of cocaine, 

PWID cocaine, and the four counts of criminal use of a 

communications facility. All of these sentences were in the middle 

to bottom end of the standard guideline

ranges.

The court did not impose consecutive sentences due to 

partiality, bias or ill will. Rather, given Appellant's prior criminal 

history and opportunities for rehabilitation, it was now time to 

protect the public. Enough was enough. Under the facts and 

circumstances of this case, a lengthy prison sentence was 

appropriate.

As the court noted in its sentencing order:

[Appellant] wrote a relatively heartfelt and very 

articulate letter to the [c]ourt setting forth his regret for 

what he did, his insight into the nature of his behaviors, 

and how he has learned from his mistakes. The [c]ourt 

can only question, however, the ability of [Appellant] to 

make changes. [Appellant] has spent a significant 

amount of time in jail prior to this, and the [c]ourt is left 

wanting as to why [Appellant] did not reach such

conclusions about his behaviors and his future when he 

spent years in prison previously. He had available 

programming, and had certainly enough time to think 

about where he did not want to be.

[Appellant] does present a significant danger to 

the public. For over half of his life he has been involved 

in distributing controlled substances. Despite escalating 

sanctions[,] [Appellant] has not changed his behaviors.

[Appellant] admitted that he became addicted to the 

lifestyle, and did not sell controlled substances for any 

other reasons but to be more comfortable with his 

financial situation. He indicated he did not need the 

money, but wanted it.

 The cost to the community as a result of 

[Appellant's] conduct cannot be accurately measured. 

To say that the community, families, mothers, children, 

siblings, and even innocent individuals is significant
J-A05045-22

- 10 -

would be an understatement. In 2017 alone[,] over 

70,000 people died of drug overdoses in the United 

States. The [c]ourt can only wonder how many

individuals, if any, died as a result of [Appellant's]

conduct. The [c]ourt can only wonder, but does not 

really have to guess how many families and individuals 

were destroyed as a result of [Appellant's] conduct.

 The impact of the offense on the community is 

significant and cannot really be put in words. Protecting 

the public under these circumstances is a very high 

need. [Appellant's] rehabilitation is questionable. While

[Appellant] speaks very well in connection with his 

intentions, his conduct over the past twenty (20) years 

belies such intentions.

 This is a sad day. While many [c]ourts and 

[j]udges hesitate in being entirely candid, this [c]ourt 

tries to be as candid as possible. [Appellant] needs to be 

warehoused. Society needs to be protected. [Appellant] 

appears to this [c]ourt to be institutionalized and 

incapable of changing his behaviors despite his insight. 

In weighing all relevant factors, the [c]ourt has to place

the most emphasis on protecting the public.

 Yes, drug dealing will be prevalent and continue to 

exist, and yes others may take [Appellant's] place, but 

this does not mean that [Appellant] should not be 

accountable, or that the public should not be protected 

from [Appellant's] conduct. In the past nineteen (19) 

years [Appellant] has had eight (8) drug[-]related 

convictions, and five (5) delivery or possession with

intent to deliver convictions. The [c]ourt takes no 

pleasure in warehousing [Appellant]. The [c]ourt takes 

no pleasure in impacting his family's life. The [c]ourt 

takes no pleasure in seeing another young man become 

a statistic versus an exception. Yet, as [Appellant] 

properly noted, these were his choices. He did have 

choices available to him[,] and he chose this route. As

defense counsel aptly notes, and unfortunately notes, 

this is the price of doing business and [Appellant] was 

well aware of such.[3]

____________________________________________

3 See Sentencing Order, filed December 30, 2019, at 2-3

(unnumbered).
J-A05045-22

- 11 -

For the foregoing reasons, the court does not believe that the 

imposition of some consecutive sentences in this case resulted in 

an excessive sentence.

Appellant next contends that the court erred in considering 

the national impact of drug addiction and overdose when imposing 

sentence, and speculating that individuals may have died due to 

Appellant's conduct. Again, the court cannot agree.

The court's statements in this regard were in response to the 

minimization of Appellant's drug crimes. The writer of the social 

assessment indicated that Appellant did not want to further the 

problem of addiction in our society by continuing to sell drugs 

because he knows the damage that they cause, but a lengthy state 

sentence would only warehouse Appellant and perpetuate the 

vicious cycle prominent in his life. Furthermore, the writer

indicated whether Appellant continues to sell drugs or not, the 

replacement effect will occur and someone else will take his place. 

Sentencing Transcript, at 5. Additionally, during the sentencing 

hearing and in the motion for reconsideration of sentence, defense 

counsel argued that a lengthy state sentence was not appropriate 

because Appellant did not have a history of violent crimes or 

sexual offenses; he just had a history of repeat drug offenses. 

Sentencing Transcript, at 13-14; Motion for Reconsideration, 

¶6(d).

While delivery of heroin is not a “crime of violence” as defined 

in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §9714(g), it is a crime which negatively affects 

society greatly and carries a risk of death. At the reconsideration 

hearing, both defense counsel and the district attorney

acknowledged that fact. Defense counsel stated, “Yes this is a 

problem. This is a horrible problem. Yes many people do die from 

opiate use.” Reconsideration Transcript, 3/16/2020, at 6. The 

district attorney stated:

 This is an individual that has prior drug delivery 

convictions, he had a prior protracted state sentence, 

none of this was a deterrence leading up to the most 

recent set of charges for which he's subsequently been 

sentenced. The only thing devoid in this young man's 

record with respect to drug crimes is a drug delivery 

resulting in death, and that's fortunate for both him and 

society.

Id. at 8. Moreover, appellate case law recognizes the dangers 

inherent with the delivery of opiods [sic]. As the Superior Court 
J-A05045-22

- 12 -

noted in Minn. Fire and Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 805 A.2d 622,

(Pa.Super. 2002), aff'd 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004):

[I]t is certain that frequently harm will occur to the 

buyer if one sells heroin. Not only is it criminalized 

because of the great risk of harm, but in this day and 

age, everyone realizes the danger of heroin use.

805 A.2d at 624; see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 234 A.3d 

824, 833 (Pa.Super. 2020); Commonwealth v. Kakhankham, 132 

A.3d 986, 995-96 (Pa. Super. 2015). By repeatedly selling heroin, 

Appellant was playing Russian roulette with the lives of his 

purchasers. See Minn. Fire and Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A.2d 

854, 870-71 (Pa. 2004)(Castille, J., concurring)(the use of 

illegally-purchased heroin is a modern form of Russian roulette). 

No one died from his current sales because Appellant sold to 

undercover officers who never were going to use the substances, 

but that does not diminish the seriousness of Appellant's offenses 

or the pervasive nature of Appellant's drug dealing since 

approximately 1999.

Appellant asserts that the court erred in determining that 

Appellant needs to be warehoused and he is incapable of 

rehabilitation. He also asserts that the court erred in discounting 

the effect of Appellant's mental health problems. The court found 

that Appellant needs to be warehoused and his rehabilitative 

needs should be accorded little weight compared to the protection 

of the public because this was the sixth time that Appellant had

been convicted of delivery of controlled substances, and he 

engaged in four separate deliveries of heroin. Although Appellant 

wrote a heartfelt letter setting forth his regret for what he did, his 

insight into the nature of his behaviors, and how he has learned 

from his mistakes, his words rang hollow in light of his behaviors 

and failure to change during his previous sentences of probation, 

county incarceration and state incarceration. Actions speak louder 

than words. Through his actions, Appellant has shown that he 

cannot or will not stop dealing drugs.

Although Appellant has used controlled substances for 28 

years, he has no desire to stop and does not consider himself an 

addict. Appellant acknowledged that he is like a moth drawn to a 

flame. What he fails to recognize is that as long as he continues 

to use controlled substances and have contact with the individuals 

providing those substances to him, he likely will continue to be 

drawn to his lifestyle of dealing drugs.
J-A05045-22

- 13 -

With respect to his mental health problems, the defense 

provided little or no information regarding those problems. There 

was a reference in the social assessment that as long as Appellant 

can remember he has been on disability, he had vision and hearing 

issues, and a mental health diagnosis but he doesn't know what 

that diagnosis was. Sentencing Transcript, 12/23/2019, at 4. 

Appellant also made statements at the reconsideration hearing

about his rough home life growing up with drug-addicted relatives 

in Philadelphia and how due to various difficulties (including 

abuse), at one point he wanted to take himself off this planet. 

Reconsideration Transcript, 3/16/2020, at 10. From these 

statements, one could infer that at least at one point in his life 

Appellant had issues with depression and thoughts of suicide. 

However, without knowing Appellant's mental health diagnoses or 

the treatment he needs, if any, the court could not find that 

Appellant's mental health problems outweighed the need to 

protect the public in this case.

____

4204 Pa. Code §303.4(a)(3)("Offenders who do not fall into the 

REVOC or RFEL categories shall be classified in a Point-Score 

Category. The Prior Record Score shall be the sum of the points 

accrued based on previous convictions and adjudications, up to a 

maximum of five points.").

Trial Court Opinion in Support of Order in Compliance with Rule 1925(a) of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure, filed 9/21/21, at 4-10. 

 Following our review, we find the record unambiguously reflects the 

trial court's knowledge and consideration at sentencing of the information it 

highlights in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion. Appellant’s arguments to the contrary, 

the consecutive nature of Appellant’s sentence did not result in an 

unreasonable application of the Sentencing Guidelines. 

 The trial court had the benefit of a PSI and numerous other assessments

when fashioning its sentence. While it opined as to the number of drug related 

deaths to which Appellant may have contributed, this musing was merely a 
J-A05045-22

- 14 -

small part of the trial court’s detailed explanation for the sentence it imposed

and was in response to the statements made in the social assessment which 

Appellant’s counsel had provided. 

 In addition, the trial court considered Appellant's PSI during sentencing, 

and noted, on the record, Appellant’s extensive history of drug-related 

convictions. See N.T. Sentencing, 2/23/19, at 2-7. Clearly, the court was 

cognizant of Appellant’s troubled background as is evident by both its 

statements on the record at the sentencing hearing and its possession of a 

PSI. However, it properly determined that Appellant’s admitted refusal to stop 

using and selling drugs outweighed any mitigating factors for purposes of 

sentencing. 

 Mindful that sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the 

trial court, and finding no showing of manifest abuse, we conclude the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in rendering Appellant’s sentence. See 

Moury, 992 A.2d at 169–70. As such, we find the trial court was within its 

discretion to impose the consecutive sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) 

years’ incarceration. 

 Judgment of Sentence Affirmed. 
J-A05045-22

- 15 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/16/2022